Introduction
One of the current and global issue of our time is the refugee crisis. There are thousands of desperate refugees who wanted to flee from the unbearable conflict and bloodshed in their countries, and are knocking on the doors of other more developed and peaceful nations. The question is, how far and to what extent should other countries extend support to refugees? The 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, which is the international refugee law provided that, “refugees deserve, as a minimum, the same standards of treatment enjoyed by other foreign nationals in a given country and, in many cases, the same treatment as nationals.” (qtd. in Weil, n.p). But while some countries are willing to let refugees in, there were others who imposed restrictions on the number of refugees allowed while some others who completely denied the entry of any refugee in their country.
Between National Interest and the Obligation to Humanity
Refugees are considered as one among the most defenseless group of people, thus there were laws that were promulgated to promote their well being. For example, the prime binding principle of the Refugee Protocol explicitly states against the forced repatriation of refugees to countries where their lives and freedom are put at risk (Fitzpatrick, 4). However, some nations felt there was a need to limit the number or even refuse refugees in entering their country due to several factors. First, some countries argued that they can only accommodate a limited number of refugees according to their available resource. In a report by the CNN, the arrival of a large number of refugees in Europe puts too much pressure on the economy of European countries, for example, in 2015, Germany claimed that it can take up to 800,000 refugees and expects to expend about $6.7 billion (Yan, n.p). In a controversial argument, wealthier states are compared to lifeboats and it was pointed out that every country has a certain capacity and allowing the entry of more people beyond that capacity can sink the boat.
Another reason why some countries imposed restrictions on the number of refugees that enter their borders is the threat to security. The occurrence of terrorist attacks in some countries resulted in the connection of violence and terrorism with the increased number of refugees. In the United States, there are some states that vehemently refused the entry of refugees for fear that their generosity will cause the perpetuation of terrorism and violence in their locality. While it is not within the prerogative of states in the U.S to prevent the entry of refugees, each state can have the right not to cooperate with the national government.
Gulf Countries’ Arguments
Despite being neighbors to Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, the oil-rich countries in the Gulf area refused to accept any of the refugees. It was reported that Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf Countries extended financial support for the Syrian refugees, but remained close to their borders. They maintained that they have the security of their territory in their minds, further expressing that the entry of refugees in their borders “feeds into ISIS appeal’ (Yan, n.p). Further, they claimed that the refugees can have an impact on the security of the region, and this they cannot allow to happen to the Arab Gulf states which they consider as among the most stable and secure region. It is to be noted that none of the members of the Gulf states are signatories of the international treaty on refugees.
The Moral Obligation to Humanity
The current crisis in Syria and other conflicting countries resulted in the strain on the lives of innocent people. Other countries, must always prepare to open their borders and help refugees who seek shelter. As the European Union worked towards the appropriate distribution of the larger number of people that fee from the oppressive atmosphere of their home country, the countries that have the ability to help must do so. There are countries that fear about the possible consequences of accepting refugees such as threats to the country’s security, and economic impact. However, helping these refugees should be considered as a moral obligation of humanity, and not as a form of charitable act.
The refusal to help the refugees and allowing them to stay in camps for many years have a detrimental impact on the global situation. Further, it should be noted that refugees are literally not protected by their governments, thus, out of humanitarian causes, an able country must help them and ensure that their human rights are protected. The concept of humanity demands that other countries must help people that are in dire need such as the Syrian refugees. This is because of the idea that anyone from the United States or other developed countries could have been born in Syria, and would need the help as much. Therefore, each country must exert considerable effort to help, nevertheless, they must also exercise caution in doing so.
Works Cited
Fitzpatrick, Joan. "The International Dimensions of U.S Refugee Law." Berkeley Journal of International Law 15.1 (1997): n. pag. Web. <http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1154&context=bjil>.
Weil, Madison. "Natonality vs Humanity: The Stranger's Case." The Generation 2015: n. pag. Print.
Yan, Holly. "Are Some Countries Obligated to Take in Refugees? In Some Cases, Yes." CNN. N.p., 2015. Web. <http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/08/world/refugee-obligation/>.
