New international refugee compact needed - The Centre for Independent Studies
Donate today!
Your support will help build a better future.
Your Donation at WorkDonate Now

New international refugee compact needed

refugees 3When US President Trump signed an executive order on immigration last week, he not only put a temporary halt to entry from citizens of seven, largely Islamic, countries, he also suspended the US refugee program for four months. The order goes on to limit the total number of refugees accepted by the US in fiscal year 2017 to 50,000.

This does not mean the US must accept 50,000 refugees — former President Obama had set the limit at 110,000 and accepted less than 85,000, still the highest level of his presidency — but even if the US does accept the full 50,000 this will be a significant step down from its current intake.

The UNHCR estimated that there were 21.3 million refugees worldwide in 2015 and 65.3 million forcibly displaced persons. There are many millions more living in abject poverty desperate for a chance at life in the first world. The vast majority of refugees come from the Middle East and Africa.

Although there are more than 140 parties to the UN Convention on Refugees and the subsequent Protocol, in practice there is a clear division: refugees are hosted overwhelming by poor countries, while reported resettlement falls almost exclusively on 20 or 30 rich, western nations.

According to the UNHCR, only 107,100 refugees were reported as being resettled in 2015, more than half of them by the US and just under 10% by Australia (though many more have access to benefits and services in places like Germany). There is little prospect of the sustained, substantial increase in refugee intake necessary to clear this backlog. The annual increase in refugees in recent years has far outstripped total resettlement.

The simple fact is, for many years no western nation has been living up to its obligations under the refugee convention. Indeed it is probable that most have never done so, though it may in fact be impossible to comply with these obligations — given the hundreds of millions of people who are displaced or desperate for the opportunities presented by countries like Australia.

Either way, the broad-based support for a massive increase in the refugee intake is not there.

On the contrary, populist anti-immigration, anti-refugee movements are gathering more support. In the US President Trump has promised to deport illegal immigrants, the United Kingdom Independence Party’s Brexit campaign focused strongly on taking back control of the UK’s borders while Pauline Hanson’s One Nation in Australia has called for a halt to taking further Muslim refugees.

Supporters of these policies are being dismissed as the racist fringe. Yet both Labor and Liberal in Australia support strong border control, Brexit received majority support and Trump won the US presidency.

There are many reasons for this support: some believe the government should prioritise limited resources towards citizens rather than foreigners, while others are concerned about the loss of jobs. There are also fears over terrorism, as well as social cohesion issues between those of different faiths and backgrounds (particularly evidenced by events in Germany). Some are worried about being overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of those seeking refuge.

Regardless of the specific reason, it is clear that a significant minority, if not a majority, of people in western nations like Australia and the US simply will not accept the mass resettlement of people from the third world. Nor do they support the military interventions that would be necessary to prevent humanitarian crises from occurring in the first place.

The refugee convention represents ideals that many would aspire to. However, in practice the current global refugee resettlement model is failing. It is not reducing the numbers of refugees, many of whom remain trapped in camps for many years. It is not being followed by governments, and what is being implemented does not have broad public support.

Ignoring or dismissing the concerns of these people has been a failure for refugee advocates. Shaming voters who worried about refugees will not convince them to change their mind.

A new refugee settlement is needed, one that secures support by acknowledging the concerns of the public at large, and deals with the very real issue of millions of people fleeing horror. It is not easy to see a solution to this problem, but nor is it easy to tolerate the suffering being caused.

Simon Cowan is Research Manager at The Centre for Independent Studies.