The perfect storm
Sep. 21st, 2015 03:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nairiporterThe butterfly effect is a well known concept in chaos theory. It says that if a butterfly flaps its wings at the opposite end of the world, in time it would cause a hurricane at this side, because every little occurrence could set up an unpredictable chain of cause and effect.
If the refugee crisis in Europe was indeed caused by such a seemingly insignificant event, the apparent stupor and utter dismay among the European leaders would have been understandable. Except, the huge deluge of migrants who are crossing continents and borders en route to Europe originates from places where chaos and bloodshed has reigned for years - so it has been anything but unanticipated. Europe has long been surrounded by crises, not necessarily related to each other, and not always caused by war alone - the lack of basic living conditions is just as significant a factor, if not more.
It seems there is never enough resources for dealing with these crises, and paradoxically, the West's commitment to tackling the root causes tends to diminish with the increase of the seriousness of these crises. But let's face it: until these generators of crises are tackled and people finally begin to see a chance for a normal life back in their country of origin, the human flood will not stop.
There are already some signs that Europe is beginning to realise this. During his State of the Union address, the president of the European Commission, Jean Claude Juncker discussed not only the quota system of refugee relocation, but also the establishment of a special 1.8 billion euro fund which is meant to provide the economic aid for improving the conditions for managing the migration from North and Sub-Saharan Africa. This measure was presented as one of the instruments that would help counter the reasons leading to the migration flows to Europe. The amount might be looking huge at a first sight, but it is supposed to be distributed between 23 countries, and help subsidise the efforts for dealing with several big regional crises. Which is why, just like the refugee quotas, it could prove "too little, too late" at this point.
The war in Syria has already reached its 5th year, but even after the doubling of the influx of Syrian refugees every year, so far it has only contributed to 1/3 of the refugees who have arrived by sea this year. The other nations in this "top 5" are Afghanistan and Eritrea (24%), and Somalia and Nigeria (another 10%). So far the humanitarian UN agencies are focused on the refugee camps around Syria (although the resources they have gathered there still amount to less than 2/3 of what is needed).
After several years of desperation and deteriorating living conditions in the camps, a large part of the Syrians are finally taking the final leap to Europe, where many of them have relatives and friends, and where they could start their lives anew. And so they take the risky route. After border control was tightened at the Balkan entrances to Europe, the only access remains by sea - and this pushes the refugees through the Aegean to the Greek islands of Kos and Lesbos, and also through the much riskier route through Egypt, Libya and the Mediterranean (into Italy and Spain). The latter is a route that until recently few had dared to venture.
But the times of former Libyan dictator Gaddafi who had an agreement with a number of European leaders are over. He had turned himself into some sort of gate-keeper for Europe, holding the vast migrant waves at the other side of the Mediterranean. But he is no more. Now Libya is a fenceless yard, and thousands of people are passing through it freely in attempt to flee a whole chain of crises, of which Europe was practically ignorant or rather failed to care enough for more than a decade. I am speaking of the crises in the Sahel region. Although the route through Libya keeps being very dangerous because of the multiple tribal paramilitary groups, the refugees are so desperate that they are willing to take the risk.
The Sahel region in West Africa has been unusually hot for the last decade, and not only because of climate change. There is a whole ton of crises there - so dangerous that the UN has put 10 out of the 13 countries in the region in their list of the 25 most fragile states. These are complex long-lasting crises of many layers, and information about them tends to trickle through to the Western media only in the most extreme moments, like when the Islamists in Mali conquered the ancient city of Timbuktu and started their military campaign against the Malian capital Bamako. Only the UN-sanctioned French intervention in Chad managed to halt their advancement, but still more than a quarter of a million people had to be evacuated to other parts of the country or to neighbouring countries. Last year alone, more than 12 thousand of them eventually managed to reach Europe. How many have died in the boats that keep sinking in the Mediterranean, will probably never be known.
Nigeria is the other big "exporter" of migrants towards the EU. But the number of people who are reaching the European shores is tiny, compared to nearly a million internally relocated, fleeing the Boko Haram terrors, hunger and epidemics (meningitis, cholera, and recently, ebola). The government has practically surrendered control of large territories in the northern part of the country, and the occasional success of the armed forces of the African Union against Boko Haram often make the humanitarian situation even worse, creating additional risks for the local population. Almost three quarters of a million of people in the region are now considered refugees, another half a million internally relocated because of conflict and famine. And if there still aren't more serious waves of migrants to Europe, the reason is that while Syria used to be a relatively strong economy before the civil war there, in Sahel most countries are at the bottom of every human development ranking, and their people could hardly afford the trip north, no matter how treacherous the traffickers and how horrible the living conditions during that ordeal might be.
And if the region has an even more serious problem than the never-ending intertwining crises, it is the lack of attention and funding for tackling their causes. Only one third of the funds that are needed for the UN agencies to supply the people in disaster (like drinking water, some minimum quantities of food and medicines) have been met for the last few years.
Of course, Europe should not be alone in taking all the responsibility for dealing with the causes of these human floods.The war in Syria, where the US, Turkey, Iran and Russia are pursuing their own strategic interests, remains the largest source of refugees. And without ending that war, the pressure on the Balkans and the European Mediterranean periphery would be there to stay. As far as Syria is concerned, Europe could mainly help by increasing its aid for the stabilisation of the surrounding countries, where the refugees could stay for a longer time, and start their life again. But in order to do that, these countries need more humanitarian assistance. They need more economic investment and long-term commitment in the development of the region.
A lot more could be done for North Africa and Sahel, though. Creating information centres in the few remaining "stable" countries like Tunisia and Algeria would be essential - these would inform the people of Africa whether they could apply for asylum, and where. In any case, a more coordinated cooperation with the stable countries in these regions is necessary, because that could prevent all these risky sea voyages. In any case, this could not happen by just bombing places, or even disrupting the trafficking canals, because it is a complicated network which tends to always find new routes in place of the old ones (example: the recent events along the Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian and Hungarian borders).
After seven decades of peace, Europe should have learned already that it is not good at waging war, and economic stabilisation is its stronger field. However, without a focused and determined new version of the Marshall plan for the regions where these refugees are coming from, any measures for interrupting the refugee flood would be incomplete, and thus, doomed.
If the refugee crisis in Europe was indeed caused by such a seemingly insignificant event, the apparent stupor and utter dismay among the European leaders would have been understandable. Except, the huge deluge of migrants who are crossing continents and borders en route to Europe originates from places where chaos and bloodshed has reigned for years - so it has been anything but unanticipated. Europe has long been surrounded by crises, not necessarily related to each other, and not always caused by war alone - the lack of basic living conditions is just as significant a factor, if not more.
It seems there is never enough resources for dealing with these crises, and paradoxically, the West's commitment to tackling the root causes tends to diminish with the increase of the seriousness of these crises. But let's face it: until these generators of crises are tackled and people finally begin to see a chance for a normal life back in their country of origin, the human flood will not stop.
There are already some signs that Europe is beginning to realise this. During his State of the Union address, the president of the European Commission, Jean Claude Juncker discussed not only the quota system of refugee relocation, but also the establishment of a special 1.8 billion euro fund which is meant to provide the economic aid for improving the conditions for managing the migration from North and Sub-Saharan Africa. This measure was presented as one of the instruments that would help counter the reasons leading to the migration flows to Europe. The amount might be looking huge at a first sight, but it is supposed to be distributed between 23 countries, and help subsidise the efforts for dealing with several big regional crises. Which is why, just like the refugee quotas, it could prove "too little, too late" at this point.
The war in Syria has already reached its 5th year, but even after the doubling of the influx of Syrian refugees every year, so far it has only contributed to 1/3 of the refugees who have arrived by sea this year. The other nations in this "top 5" are Afghanistan and Eritrea (24%), and Somalia and Nigeria (another 10%). So far the humanitarian UN agencies are focused on the refugee camps around Syria (although the resources they have gathered there still amount to less than 2/3 of what is needed).
After several years of desperation and deteriorating living conditions in the camps, a large part of the Syrians are finally taking the final leap to Europe, where many of them have relatives and friends, and where they could start their lives anew. And so they take the risky route. After border control was tightened at the Balkan entrances to Europe, the only access remains by sea - and this pushes the refugees through the Aegean to the Greek islands of Kos and Lesbos, and also through the much riskier route through Egypt, Libya and the Mediterranean (into Italy and Spain). The latter is a route that until recently few had dared to venture.
But the times of former Libyan dictator Gaddafi who had an agreement with a number of European leaders are over. He had turned himself into some sort of gate-keeper for Europe, holding the vast migrant waves at the other side of the Mediterranean. But he is no more. Now Libya is a fenceless yard, and thousands of people are passing through it freely in attempt to flee a whole chain of crises, of which Europe was practically ignorant or rather failed to care enough for more than a decade. I am speaking of the crises in the Sahel region. Although the route through Libya keeps being very dangerous because of the multiple tribal paramilitary groups, the refugees are so desperate that they are willing to take the risk.
The Sahel region in West Africa has been unusually hot for the last decade, and not only because of climate change. There is a whole ton of crises there - so dangerous that the UN has put 10 out of the 13 countries in the region in their list of the 25 most fragile states. These are complex long-lasting crises of many layers, and information about them tends to trickle through to the Western media only in the most extreme moments, like when the Islamists in Mali conquered the ancient city of Timbuktu and started their military campaign against the Malian capital Bamako. Only the UN-sanctioned French intervention in Chad managed to halt their advancement, but still more than a quarter of a million people had to be evacuated to other parts of the country or to neighbouring countries. Last year alone, more than 12 thousand of them eventually managed to reach Europe. How many have died in the boats that keep sinking in the Mediterranean, will probably never be known.
Nigeria is the other big "exporter" of migrants towards the EU. But the number of people who are reaching the European shores is tiny, compared to nearly a million internally relocated, fleeing the Boko Haram terrors, hunger and epidemics (meningitis, cholera, and recently, ebola). The government has practically surrendered control of large territories in the northern part of the country, and the occasional success of the armed forces of the African Union against Boko Haram often make the humanitarian situation even worse, creating additional risks for the local population. Almost three quarters of a million of people in the region are now considered refugees, another half a million internally relocated because of conflict and famine. And if there still aren't more serious waves of migrants to Europe, the reason is that while Syria used to be a relatively strong economy before the civil war there, in Sahel most countries are at the bottom of every human development ranking, and their people could hardly afford the trip north, no matter how treacherous the traffickers and how horrible the living conditions during that ordeal might be.
And if the region has an even more serious problem than the never-ending intertwining crises, it is the lack of attention and funding for tackling their causes. Only one third of the funds that are needed for the UN agencies to supply the people in disaster (like drinking water, some minimum quantities of food and medicines) have been met for the last few years.
Of course, Europe should not be alone in taking all the responsibility for dealing with the causes of these human floods.The war in Syria, where the US, Turkey, Iran and Russia are pursuing their own strategic interests, remains the largest source of refugees. And without ending that war, the pressure on the Balkans and the European Mediterranean periphery would be there to stay. As far as Syria is concerned, Europe could mainly help by increasing its aid for the stabilisation of the surrounding countries, where the refugees could stay for a longer time, and start their life again. But in order to do that, these countries need more humanitarian assistance. They need more economic investment and long-term commitment in the development of the region.
A lot more could be done for North Africa and Sahel, though. Creating information centres in the few remaining "stable" countries like Tunisia and Algeria would be essential - these would inform the people of Africa whether they could apply for asylum, and where. In any case, a more coordinated cooperation with the stable countries in these regions is necessary, because that could prevent all these risky sea voyages. In any case, this could not happen by just bombing places, or even disrupting the trafficking canals, because it is a complicated network which tends to always find new routes in place of the old ones (example: the recent events along the Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian and Hungarian borders).
After seven decades of peace, Europe should have learned already that it is not good at waging war, and economic stabilisation is its stronger field. However, without a focused and determined new version of the Marshall plan for the regions where these refugees are coming from, any measures for interrupting the refugee flood would be incomplete, and thus, doomed.
