Before we proceed, I will not attempt to bore you with details
on reasons why I have not published since April, for excuses I believe are
meaningless to the recipient. Instead I will endeavour to regain your audience
by covering quite a contentious issue, which I have I tried to approach with both
empathy and objectivity.
IF the migrant crisis has shown us one thing, it is that the
democratic process does work. I say this because despite the Tories best
efforts to ignore the direct humanitarian crisis and focus on “finding a
solution to Syria’s problems” (politician speak for washing their hands of a
situation) a decision arguably driven by the political cloud looming above. -The
European Union referendum. Following the circulation of a petition calling for
Britain to accept more migrants (which got more than three times the 100,000
signatures necessary to conduct a Parliamentary debate), the media’s
publication of the young boy, Aylan Kurdi’s body being lifted ashore, the
millions of migrants arriving on European member states borders and human
rights activists lobbying Parliament for long over two years, Cameron has decided
to accept more migrants.
We must ask ourselves however why it took such efforts to
begin with. Surely in the plight of a humanitarian crisis we assume a moral obligation
to assist those fleeing civil war? Well, it appears not. Of course the situation is not totally devoid
of any de jure reality, Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights provides: ‘everyone has the right to leave any country, including his
own, and to return to country.’ There is therefore a right to leave one’s own country.
A right exercised by the 350,000 Syrian migrants to have been detected by EU
Border force agencies between January and August 2015.
However, as Professor Pecoud’s highlights, there is no
corresponding right to enter another country. Rights, he notes do not derive
from universal norms like the convention, but rather from the supply and demand
mechanism that determines migrants’ value on the labour market.’ To illustrate
Antoine Pecoud’s theory is simple. The reluctance to accept more Syrian migrant
is largely due to the fact that they do not have the benefit of market forces,
which favour migrants endowed with bargaining power such as a skilled
profession. The Syrian migrants are not highly skilled professionals seeking
employment. They are instead, undertaking treacherous voyages across the Middle
East to flee a government which has violated UN Resolutions prohibiting the use
of chemical weapons at least 87 times. As Pecoud’s observes, the lack of
bargaining power prompts migrants to accept whatever conditions, as these are likely
to already constitute an improvement compared to that of their home state. The
United Nations Human Rights Commission suggests migrants are often a victim of
the three D’s found to be working in dirty, degrading and dangerous jobs. Can
we conclude therefore that unfavourable market forces are the reasons behind
the government’s unwillingness to accept more migrants?
Even if, migrants are, as Times journalist James Bloodworth writes‘doing
what politicians are usually quick to encourage us to do: they are striving for
something better; they are being aspirational. The difference between a refugee
and the member of the British middle classes is that for the former the stakes
are often a matter of life and death.’ The haunting and distressing images published by the
media of the many migrants drowning at sea, reaffirm their courage and desperation. However for many, economically
sound states such as Germany and Britain are attracting these ‘aspirational
migrants’ due to their welfare systems. A notion Bloodworth contests
wholeheartedly writing ‘refugees are not coming because Britain’s soft touch
welfare system is drawing them here like wasps to a jam jar; they are coming to
Europe in search of a decent and secure life that is free from poverty and war.’
Fear may also be attributable to the general reluctance to
assist more migrants. Going back to Pecoud's theory, he notes migration is often
viewed as a THREAT. Migration is said to jeopardize the social cohesion,
employment opportunities, welfare systems and cultural and religious homogeneity.
Such fears arguably, are evident if one is to look to the approach taken by
Hungary’s nationalist PM Viktor Orbán. Who was reported saying ‘those arriving have
been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture.
Most of them are not Christian, but Muslims... This is an important question
because Europe and European identity is rooted in Christianity.’ Perhaps, Orbán
will do well to take note of Thatcher’s address to the Royal Society ‘No
generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy- with a
full repairing lease.’
Whatever the solution, it is
not to be found in fear, prejudice or any form of discrimination based on
religious grounds. Equally, measures should ensure the protection of human
rights whilst respecting the values of the host state. A balancing act not easily achieved.