What email address or phone number would you like to use to sign in to Docs.com?
If you already have an account that you use with Office or other Microsoft services, enter it here.
Or sign in with:
Signing in allows you to download and like content, and it provides the authors analytical data about your interactions with their content.
Embed code for: アレクサンダー・ベッツ(ルビ入り）
Select a size
Our refugee system is failing. Here's how we can fix it
There are times when I feel really quite ashamed to be a European. In the last year, more than a million people arrived in Europe in need of our help, and our response, frankly, has been 哀れをさそう pathetic.
There are just so many 否定する、矛盾する contradictions. We mourn the tragic death of two-year-old Alan Kurdi, and yet, since then, more than 200 children have 続いて、その後 subsequently drowned in the 地中海の Mediterranean. We have international 条約、約束 treaties that recognize that 避難者、亡命者 refugees are a shared responsibility, and yet we accept that tiny Lebanon hosts more Syrians than the whole of Europe combined. We 嘆き悲しむ lament the existence of human 密輸入者 smugglers, and yet we make that the only 実現可能な、生存できる viable route to seek 避難、逃亡 asylum in Europe. We have labor shortages, and yet we exclude people who fit our economic and demographic needs from coming to Europe. We 宣言する proclaim our 寛大な liberal values in opposition to fundamentalist Islam, and yet -- we have 抑圧的な repressive policies that 引き留める detain child 避難、保護 asylum seekers, that separate children from their families, and that 逮捕する seize 財産、所有物 property from refugees.
What are we doing? How has the situation come to this, that we've 採用された adopted such an 非人道的な inhumane response to a 人道主義の humanitarian 危機 crisis?
I don't believe it's because people don't care, or at least I don't want to believe it's because people don't care. I believe it's because our politicians lack a vision, a vision for how to 適合させる adapt an international refugee system created over 50 years ago for a changing and
globalized world. And so what I want to do is take a step back and ask two really fundamental questions, the two questions we
all need to ask. First, why is the current
system not working? And second, what can we do to fix it?
So the modern 難民 refugee 体制 regime was created in the （戦争などの）直後の時期 aftermath of the Second World War by these guys. Its basic aim is to 確実にする、守る ensure that when a state fails, or worse, turns against its own people, people have somewhere to go, to live in safety and 威厳 dignity until they can go home. It was created precisely for situations like the situation we see in Syria today. Through an international 条約、大会 convention signed by 147 governments, the 1951 条約 Convention on the Status of Refugees, and an international organization, UNHCR, states committed to 相互の reciprocally admit people onto their territory who 逃げる flee 争い conflict and 迫害 persecution.
But today, that system is failing. In theory, refugees have a right to seek 避難、亡命 asylum. In practice, our immigration policies block the path to safety. In theory, refugees have a right to a pathway to integration, or return to the country they've come from. But in practice, they get stuck in almost 不明確な indefinite 地獄の辺土、無視された状態 limbo. In theory, refugees are a shared global responsibility. In practice, geography means that countries 最も近い proximate the 戦い conflict take the 圧倒的な overwhelming 大多数 majority of the world's refugees. The system isn't broken because the rules are wrong. It's that we're not 適用する applying them 適切に adequately to a changing world, and that's what we need to reconsider.
So I want to explain to you a little bit about how the current system works. How does the refugee 体制 regime actually work? But not from a top-down 制度上の institutional 考え方 perspective, rather from the perspective of a refugee. So imagine a Syrian woman. Let's call her Amira. And Amira to me 代表する、表現する represents many of the people I've met in the 地域、範囲 region. Amira, like around 25 percent of the world's refugees, is a woman with children, and she can't go home because she comes from this city that you see before you, Homs, a once beautiful and historic city now under がれき、破片 rubble. And so Amira can't go back there. But Amira also has no hope of 再定住、再植民 resettlement to a third country, because that's a 抽選、運 lottery ticket only available to less than one percent of the world's refugees.
So Amira and her family face an almost impossible choice. They have three basic options. The first option is that Amira can take her family to a camp. In the camp, she might get assistance, but there are very few prospects for Amira and her family. Camps are in 寒々とした bleak, 不毛の arid locations, often in the desert. In the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan, you can hear the shells across the border in Syria at nighttime. There's 制限された restricted economic activity. Education is often of poor quality. And around the world, some 80 percent of refugees who are in camps have to stay for at least five years. It's a miserable existence, and that's probably why, in reality, only nine percent of Syrians choose that option.
代わりに、或いは Alternatively, Amira can head to an urban area in a neighboring country, like アンマン（ヨルダンの首都） Amman or ベイルート（レバノンの首都） Beirut. That's an option that about 75 percent of Syrian refugees have taken. But there, there's great difficulty as well. Refugees in such urban areas don't usually have the right to work. They don't usually get 重要な、意味のある significant access to assistance. And so when Amira and her family have used up their basic 節約する savings, they're left with very little and likely to face urban 貧困 destitution.
So there's a third alternative, and it's one that increasing numbers of Syrians are taking. Amira can seek some hope for her family by risking their lives on a dangerous and 危険な、冒険的な perilous journey to another country, and it's that which we're seeing in Europe today.
Around the world, we present refugees with an almost impossible choice between three options: 野営 encampment, urban destitution and dangerous journeys. For refugees, that choice is the global refugee regime today. But I think it's a false choice. I think we can reconsider that choice. The reason why we limit those options is because we think that those are the only options that are available to refugees, and they're not. Politicians frame the issue as a zero-sum issue, that if we 役に立つ benefit refugees, we're 印象的な、人目を惹く imposing costs on citizens. We tend to have a collective 事実だと考える assumption that refugees are an 避けられない inevitable cost or 荷物 burden to society. But they don't have to. They can 貢献する contribute.
So what I want to argue is there are ways in which we can expand that choice set and still benefit everyone else: the host states and communities, our societies and refugees themselves. And I want to suggest four ways we can transform the 模範、典型 paradigm of how we think about refugees. All four ways have one thing in common: they're all ways in which we take the opportunities of globalization, 可動性 mobility and markets, and update the way we think about the refugee issue.
The first one I want to think about is the idea of enabling environments, and it starts from a very basic recognition that refugees are human beings like everyone else, but they're just in 異常な extraordinary circumstances. Together with my 同僚 colleagues in Oxford, we've 積み込む、船出する embarked on a research project in Uganda looking at the economic lives of refugees. We chose Uganda not because it's 代表的な、典型的な representative of all host countries. It's not. It's 例外的な、並外れた exceptional. Unlike most host countries around the world, what Uganda has done is give refugees economic opportunity. It gives them the right to work. It gives them freedom of movement. And the results of that are extraordinary both for refugees and the host community. In the capital city, Kampala, we found that 21 percent of refugees own a business that employs other people, and 40 percent of those employees are nationals of the host country. In other words, refugees are making jobs for citizens of the host country. Even in the camps, we found extraordinary examples of 震える、きらめく、活気に満ちた vibrant, 繁栄する flourishing and entrepreneurial businesses.
For example, in a 植民、移民 settlement called Nakivale, we found examples of コンゴ人の Congolese refugees running digital music exchange businesses. We found a Rwandan who runs a business that's available to allow the youth to play computer games on recycled games consoles and recycled televisions. Against the 見込み、可能性 odds of extreme 強制、束縛 constraint, refugees are 確信する、刷新する innovating, and the gentleman you see before you is a Congolese guy called Demou-Kay. Demou-Kay arrived in the 居留地 settlement with very little, but he wanted to be a filmmaker. So with friends and colleagues, he started a community radio station, he rented a video camera, and he's now making films. He made two documentary films with and for our team, and he's making a successful business out of very little. It's those kinds of examples that should guide our response to refugees. Rather than seeing refugees as 必然的に inevitably dependent upon 人道主義の humanitarian assistance, we need to provide them with opportunities for human 繁栄する flourishing.
Yes, clothes, blankets, shelter, food are all important in the emergency 時期、段階 phase, but we need to also look beyond that. We need to provide opportunities to connectivity, electricity, education, the right to work, access to capital and banking. All the ways in which we take for 叶える、認める granted that we are plugged in to the global economy can and should apply to refugees.
The second idea I want to discuss is economic zones. Unfortunately, not every host country in the world takes the approach Uganda has taken. Most host countries don't open up their economies to refugees in the same way. But there are still 実践的な pragmatic alternative options that we can use.
Last April, I traveled to Jordan with my colleague, the development economist Paul Collier, and we brainstormed an idea while we were there with the international community and the government, an idea to bring jobs to Syrians while supporting Jordan's national development 戦略、計画 strategy. The idea is for an economic zone, one in which we could 潜在的に、もしかすると potentially 統合する integrate the employment of refugees 一緒に alongside the employment of Jordanian host nationals. And just 15 minutes away from the Zaatari refugee camp, home to 83,000 refugees, is an existing economic zone called the King Hussein Bin Talal Development Area. The government has spent over a hundred million dollars connecting it to the electricity grid, connecting it to the road network, but it lacked two things: access to labor and 内部の inward 投資 investment. So what if refugees were able to work there rather than being stuck in camps, able to support their families and develop skills through 職業上の vocational training before they go back to Syria? We recognized that that could benefit Jordan, whose development strategy requires it to make the leap as a middle income country to manufacturing. It could benefit refugees, but it could also 貢献する contribute to the postconflict 再建 reconstruction of Syria by recognizing that we need to incubate refugees as the best source of 結局は eventually rebuilding Syria.
We 公表する published the idea in the journal Foreign Affairs. King Abdullah has picked up on the idea. It was announced at the London Syria Conference two weeks ago, and a pilot will begin in the summer.
The third idea that I want to put to you is 選択 preference matching between states and refugees to lead to the kinds of happy 結果、成果 outcomes you see here in the selfie featuring Angela Merkel and a Syrian refugee. What we まれに rarely do is ask refugees what they want, where they want to go, but I'd argue we can do that and still make everyone better off. The economist Alvin Roth has developed the idea of matching markets, ways in which the 選択 preference ranking of the parties shapes an eventual match. My colleagues Will Jones and Alex Teytelboym have 探求、調査する explored ways in which that idea could be applied to refugees, to ask refugees to rank their preferred destinations, but also allow states to rank the types of refugees they want on skills criteria or language criteria and allow those to match. Now, of course you'd need to build in 分担、割り当て quotas on things like 多様性、種々雑多の diversity and 弱み vulnerability, but it's a way of increasing the possibilities of matching. The matching idea has been successfully used to match, for instance, students with university places, to match 腎臓 kidney donors with 病人 patients, and it underlies the kind of algorithms that exist on dating websites. So why not apply that to give refugees greater choice?
It could also be used at the national level, where one of the great challenges we face is to 確信する、説得する persuade local communities to accept refugees. And at the moment, in my country, for instance, we often send engineers to 田舎の rural areas and farmers to the cities, which makes no sense at all. So matching markets offer a potential way to bring those 好み、選択 preferences together and listen to the needs and demands of the populations that host and the refugees themselves.
The fourth idea I want to put to you is of 人道主義的な humanitarian visas. Much of the tragedy and chaos we've seen in Europe was entirely avoidable. It 幹、血統 stems from a fundamental 否認 contradiction in Europe's 避難、亡命 asylum policy, which is the following: that in order to seek asylum in Europe, you have to arrive 自発的に spontaneously by embarking on those dangerous journeys that I described. But why should those journeys be necessary in an 時代、時期 era of the budget airline and modern 領事館の consular capabilities? They're completely unnecessary journeys, and last year, they led to the deaths of over 3,000 people on Europe's borders and within European territory.
If refugees were simply allowed to travel directly and seek asylum in Europe, we would avoid that, and there's a way of doing that through something called a humanitarian visa, that allows people to collect a visa at an 大使館 embassy or a 領事館 consulate in a neighboring country and then simply pay their own way through a ferry or a flight to Europe. It costs around a thousand euros to take a s 密輸業者 muggler from Turkey to the Greek islands. It costs 200 euros to take a budget airline from Bodrum to Frankfurt. If we allowed refugees to do that, it would have major advantages. It would save lives, it would undercut the entire market for 密輸業者 smugglers, and it would remove the chaos we see from Europe's front line in areas like the Greek islands. It's politics that 防止する prevents us doing that rather than a 合理的な rational solution.
And this is an idea that has been 適用された applied. Brazil has adopted a pioneering approach where over 2,000 Syrians have been able to get humanitarian visas, enter Brazil, and claim refugee 地位 status on arrival in Brazil. And in that 計画、案 scheme, every Syrian who has gone through it has received refugee status and been recognized as a genuine refugee.
There is a historical 先例 precedent for it as well. Between 1922 and 1942, these Nansen passports were used as travel documents to allow 450,000 Assyrians, Turks and Chechens to travel across Europe and claim refugee status elsewhere in Europe. And the Nansen International Refugee Office received the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of this being a 実行可能な viable 戦略 strategy.
So all four of these ideas that I've presented you are ways in which we can expand Amira's choice set. They're ways in which we can have greater choice for refugees beyond those basic, impossible three options I explained to you and still leave others better off.
結論として In conclusion, we really need a new vision, a vision that 拡張する enlarges the choices of refugees but recognizes that they don't have to be a 重荷 burden. There's nothing 避けられない inevitable about refugees being a cost. Yes, they are a humanitarian responsibility, but they're human beings with skills, talents, 熱望 aspirations, with the ability to make 貢献 contributions -- if we let them.
In the new world, migration is not going to go away. What we've seen in Europe will be with us for many years. People will continue to travel, they'll continue to be displaced, and we need to find rational, realistic ways of managing this -- not based on the old logics of humanitarian assistance, not based on logics of charity, but building on the opportunities offered by 世界的規模化 globalization, markets and 可能性、流動性 mobility. I'd 主張する urge you all to wake up and urge our politicians to wake up to this challenge.
Thank you very much.
1that exist on dating websites. So why not apply that to give refugees greater choice?
In the new world, migration is not going to go away. What we've seen in Europe will be with us for many years. People will continue to travel, they'll continue to be displaced, and we need to find rational, realistic ways of managing this -- not based on the old logics of humanitarian assistance, not based on logics of chari