The 2015 Syrian refugee crisis Q&A

The current EU migrant crisis has been going on for quite a while and when I was back in Singapore this year, some of my friends have asked me about the issue. I do have friends from the Syrian, Iraqi and Lebanese communities here in London and thus have had the chance to speak to them about the issue, given that it does affect their extended families. There have been many questions asked which I hope I will be able to do justice to in a Q&A piece here.

Life in a refugee camp is harsh.

Q: Why are the refugees coming in such big numbers now, compared to before?

The main source of the refugees is Syria, where the civil war has been going on since 2011. As the situation in Syria deteriorated, many refugees have fled first to nearby countries like Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt. These people have been forced to leave their homes by the violent civil war but their intentions have always been to return to Syria once the war was over to rebuild their lives. However, there are two main reasons why they have decided to try to make their way to Europe: the first is that there is simply no end in sight for the brutal war in Syria after four years. The second reason is that these refugees have found life extremely difficult in the refugee camps they are in - their original plans were to just put up with the harsh conditions for the short term until they can return to Syria.

Q: Why aren't they settling in neighbouring Muslim countries, why risk life and limb to come to Europe?

There are stories for example of refugees from Syria who are being exploited in these countries they are refugees in - for example, in Turkey, they have been exploited as a source of very cheap labour in the construction industry. The refugees are desperate for work, so they will work harder than the locals for a lot less money, so whilst some construction businesses have benefited from this new source of cheap labour, there is a lot of friction between the locals and the refugees. The Turkish locals resent the fact that this huge influx of refugee has driven down wages and they are now having to compete with Syrian refugees. Initially the Turkish have been sympathetic to the plight of these desperate Syrians turning up on the Turkish border, but after four years, they are suffering from compassion fatigue - the international community has turned a blind eye and expect people like the Turks to just bear the burden: a lot more help needs to be given to countries like Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and Turkey to help them cope with the refugees.

So yeah, whilst you can argue that these Syrian refugees might be better off in an Arabic-speaking Muslim country like Jordan, Egypt or Lebanon - the reality is that their lives in these countries are very miserable as refugees and the locals are becoming less and less helpful as the civil war in Syria rages on with no end in sight. With countries like Germany and Sweden being very welcoming to refugees, many have decided that they are probably better off starting a brand new life in Europe - refugees are treated far better in the EU, but of course, the problem is getting here in the first place and the journey to somewhere like Germany can be dangerous and these refugees are putting their lives in the hands of human smugglers who care more about their profits than the safety of their refugees.

Q: Why aren't Muslim countries doing more? Doesn't Islam preach that they should help fellow Muslims?

Those are questions that many are asking - it is a complex question that requires a complex question. Neighbouring Muslim countries near Syria like Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Egypt are already doing a lot to help. However, there are some that have flatly refused to help at all - Saudi Arabia has refused to take any refugees despite her immense oil wealth, nor has other rich gulf states like Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain Qatar and the UAE. The biggest irony is that these rich gulf states employ millions of migrant workers from countries like India, Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh - but these migrant workers are there on fixed contracts and will never receive citizenship. These South Asian migrant workers may be poor, but they have a home to go back to. The gulf states fear that with no end in sight for the Syrian war, these people may never have a home to go back to - hence the resistance to help any refugees. Nonetheless these gulf Arab countries have at least contributed a lot of financial aid to help the Syrian refugees in refugee camps: they are willing to donate money to help the refugees, but they are adamant not to accept any in their countries.

As for the role of Islam, sure it preaches compassion but it is overly simplistic to imagine that all Muslims would do this or that just because their religion says something. You cannot treat Muslims like a monolithic entity, you cannot make any assumptions about their actions or motivations. Different Muslims will have different reasons and motivations behind their actions, be it to help or ignore the plight of the Syrians. Amongst the people of any religion, there are good and bad people - it is plain idiocy to make any assumptions on the basis of religious scripture. People take personal responsibility for their ethics, their morals, their actions and decisions; please do not assume that people who claim to be of a certain religion actually do as they are told. So many wars have been fought over the centuries in the name of religion, millions have been killed in the name of religion - which religion actually tells you to go out there and slaughter others? So please, take the role of Islam/religion in this conflict with a big pinch of salt.

Q: Wouldn't these refugees rather go live in a Muslim-majority country instead?

The refugees are not shopping around for the ideal or best country to live in - they are just hoping to go to a country which will not turn them away or exploit them. You need to understand - these refugees are fleeing war, their homes have been destroyed. Whether you are Muslim or Christian, religious or secular, a believer or an atheist (like me), you pretty much have the same basic needs. We all want a normal life - to be able to have a job to support our families, for our children to go to school, to have a roof over our heads, to have three meals a day - these refugees just want to have some semblance of a normal life; it is a question of priority and these needs can be met in a European country.

Why do you think these refugees prefer to settle in a Muslim country?

Besides, there are plenty of Muslims in Europe anyway: there are already about 45 million Muslims in Europe and in the UK for example, 2.8% of the population is Muslim. They live amongst non-Muslims, they work amongst non-Muslims and they are free to practice their religion. What makes you think that Muslims are not able or willing to live and work alongside non-Muslims? Most European countries are multi-ethnic and multi-cultural - most Muslims are often well integrated and only a very small minority refuse to assimilate at all. So for a Syrian refugee family, as long as they can send their children to school to continue their education, they'll be very happy - they certainly do not demand that their children must have Muslim-only classmates. In any case, Syria is not a Muslim-only country: there are significant Christian and Druze minorities who live alongside the Muslims.

Q: But they are going from being in a Muslim-majority country to being a minority in Europe...?

And so? I am an atheist. I do not believe in a god. This makes me a minority in any country I go to - there isn't a country in the world that is majority atheist: my atheism makes me different from people who do have a religion. But so what? I do not discriminate against people who have a religion, I am happy to live alongside them and work alongside them - I respect their right to have a religion and they respect my right to reject any kind of religion. Heck, I have plenty of friends who are Muslim and we have a mutual respect for each other's right when it comes to the issue of religion. My situation really isn't that different from the Muslims in the UK - so we have a different take on religion, so what? We live in a secular state whereby we are all equal as citizens before the law regardless of our religious persuasions. Indeed, Muslims, atheists and those of other minority religions are not persecuted in a secular country like the UK.

As a British atheist, I am a minority in more ways than one!

Q: Why are some EU countries more open to refugees than others?

It depends on the politics and culture of the country. Firstly, the governments do what they can get away with within the democratic system. So if a prime minister knows that letting in a lot of refugees would make him/her so unpopular that s/he will lose the next election, then guess what s/he is going to do? S/he will put his/her political career before the considerations of the refugees. But despite that, there are countries like Germany and Sweden who have been extremely welcoming and hospitable to refugees. Countries like France and the UK often do a lot too - but this is more based on their connections with their ex-colonies so they will always help out when some kind of conflict breaks out in their ex-colonies and end up receiving refugees. Then you have the southern European countries like Italy, Greece and Spain which are already flat broke from the recession - ironically, they tend to be the point of entry for many refugees into the EU, but even the refugees don't want to stay in a country like Greece.

Q: But why not Greece - it may be poor, but there's no war. Surely that's better than Syria, no?

Well yes, that's a fair point and the Dublin convention states that refugees must apply for asylum at the first point of entry into the EU, but there are really no jobs for the refugees in somewhere like Greece. Heck, there are no jobs even for many local Greek people in Greece, given the dire state of their economy. The refugees have a bleak future if they stay in Greece - whereas if they did make their way to a country like Germany or Sweden where they are willing and able to accommodate these refugees, a better future awaits them there. Unlike Greece, there are actually jobs for these refugees in Germany and Sweden, given the strength of these northern European economic power houses. All things considered, it just makes sense to everyone involved to allow the refugee to make their way to Germany.

Germany has the resources to help these refugees.

Q: What do you think the solution is to the refugee crisis?

There is no simple solution - the ultimate solution is to restore peace to Syria so the many Syrian refugees can return to rebuild their homes, their lives and their country. But with Russia now supporting the Assad regime, it is only going to prolong the war.  You have four million refugees who need to go somewhere - you just can't leave them to languish in the refugee camps indefinitely. I wonder which country will be the first to tap into the wealth of well educated Syrian professionals currently fleeing Syria: we're talking about doctors, engineers, nurses and other highly skilled professionals who will be able to make great contributions to any country that takes them in. The UK is for example, issuing loads of work permits to get foreign nurses to work in our hospitals - why not just take all Syrian nurses applying for refugee status? Why stop there? Just take the most productive skilled Syrians and grant them asylum.

Q: Isn't that kinda cruel - what about those who are not highly skilled but still fleeing war?

Well there is no simple solution - if you told a country, "I want you to take on half a million refugees and none of them will be able to work, your state will have to support all of them and their families", that country would react by saying, "woah, hang on - why us? Why must we take on this huge burden? How is the government going to convince the citizens that this is the right thing to do with their tax money?" I think it is simply making the best of a bad situation - take the most highly skilled refugees, they will not be a burden on the state as they will be able to work and as a country you're seen to be doing something to help the huge humanitarian crisis. Most importantly, the locals will be less worried about taking in so many refugees if they are going to support themselves (and not sponge off the state).

Why are some countries so afraid of accepting refugees?

Q: But wait,  hang on, won't the locals be upset about the refugees increasing competition for the jobs? And aren't you depriving Syria of her most talented, highly skilled professional at a time when they are most needed at home to rebuild their war-torn country? 

Well you can't win them all. If you don't take in any refugees at all, those on the left will accuse you of being heartless. If you take in some refugees, those on the right may be upset by the increased competition the locals in the job market. There is no one perfect solution that will please everyone so this is a compromise solution to try to appease some people from all sides of the political spectrum. As for the highly skilled Syrian professionals - well some will want to return, some won't; that's a decision for each individual to make for themselves, we can't make that decision on their behalf and decide for them what they should do. Heck, even if peacetime, there are some people who will leave their countries and work abroad anyway for a variety of reasons, never to return.

Q: If you let some in, wouldn't many millions more follow?

There is some truth in that - that's why so many are headed to Germany. They are not trying to settle, for example, in Denmark because the Danish government are not at all welcoming to Syrian refugees. The Syrian refugees in Denmark are those on their way to Sweden and they try to make their way through Denmark as quickly as possible. 

Is there even a right way vs a wrong way in this situation?

Q: Why is Germany so generous with the Syrian refugees?

In Germany, there is a collective post-Nazi guilt, what happened under Hitler was so incredibly horrific, with the holocaust and the sheer brutality of the Nazi regime. Since the end of WW2, there has been a concerted effort to create a new German identity based on kindness, compassion, tolerance - almost trying to be the complete opposite of what the Nazi regime was all about. This was especially so in West Germany, as they tried to define themselves as diametrically opposite to the communist East Germany. Germany (first as West Germany, then as a united Germany from 1990 onwards) has always been compassionate to refugees: from the Vietnam war to the Yugoslav war. Furthermore, chancellor Angela Merkel has a very strong mandate and support from her people, so she knows she can do what she wants and not worry too much about her political career - unlike say, the UK where the current Conservative government won the last election with a very slim minority at the last elections earlier this year.

Furthermore, Germany faces a similar problem as Singapore: a rapidly declining birth rate and an ageing population. A 2015 study has shown Germany to have the world's lowest birth rate, falling to even lower than that of Japan. Thus without getting new migrants in to lower the average age of the working population, the ratio of the working population to the retired elderly population they have to support is going to be a huge problem in the future - so this is a problem that the German government has to address anyway. The Singapore government's solution to this is to open her doors to a large number of migrant workers from places like China, India and the Philippines - Germany has decided to kill two birds with one stone: accept the Syrian refugees and solve their ageing population crisis. Well played, chancellor Merkel. Perhaps the PAP Singapore could learn from Germany in dealing with the ageing population issue.

Q: Why are so many refugees trying to reach the UK?

I look at the situation in Calais and I shake my head in utter disbelief because the streets of London are not paved with gold. Don't get me wrong, London is one of the most important cities in the world but the high life in London is not available to refugees: even if you do make it to the UK (many actually die trying), the refugees are put on a bus, taken to some far-flung corner of the UK where the reality that greets them is nothing like the swanky streets of the West End of London. They will then be housed in some hostel in a small town and any dreams of pursuing further education or a career will be put on hold whilst their case is being processed. Those deemed to be economic migrants would be deported whilst those who are found to be genuine refugees will be granted residency for five years.

Many refugees who are not prepared to take their chances with the asylum system (and risk getting deported should their claim be rejected) would disappear into the 'black economy' where they remain in the UK as illegal immigrants, only able to get work on the black market since they do not have the right documents to work in the UK. Even if they do manage to somehow remain under the radar for years, they lead pretty miserable lives like that because they are constantly exploited by those operating on the black market and they constantly fear the police. They dream of becoming rich and successful but most of them end up working very long hours for way below the minimum wage. I'm sure many of them are disappointed as they were hoping for a much better life in the UK, but hindsight is often 2020.

Are the streets of London paved with gold?

The craziest thing about the situation is that these people are already in France - it is a very rich, beautiful, peaceful, safe Western European country, yet they are not content with seeking asylum in France and want to risk life and limb to try to make it to the UK, when they are no better off in the UK than in France. The only real benefit of them coming to the UK is the fact that English is widely spoken as a foreign or second language in the countries where these migrants come from and few of them speak any French, so if they wanted to stay in France, well then they would have to learn a new language: French. But guess what? Even if they do make it to England, there are so many new things they would have to learn about British culture in order to fit in and get a job, even if they do already speak English. If they think they can hit the ground running in England, then they are wrong. 

Q: What can be done to help the refugees fleeing Syria? 

They should be allowed to apply for asylum from their refugee camps in places like Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. They must be spared the very dangerous journeys to get from these camps to Europe, a journey which only profits human smugglers and results in many deaths. Right now, only those who can afford to pay these human smugglers and are lucky enough to make it to Europe are the ones who are applying for asylum - this is not right as it is sustaining a horrible trade in human misery, whereby the Syrians fleeing civil war are exploited. This represents the very worst of organized crime and must be dealt with. The problem right now is that the West is ignoring the millions of Syrian refugees in these camps in the Middle East and they only start thinking about the problem once these refugees turn up at their borders in large numbers. That's wrong. A comprehensive solution would start helping these desperate refugees at the camps in the Middle East and stop them from paying human smugglers to get them to Europe.

So that's it from me on this issue. It's such a huge topic that one could go on forever. I know some of the answers I have given can be controversial, especially when I have expressed my own opinions on the issue. I invite you to let me know your thoughts, please respond with more questions and let's talk about the issue. Many thanks for reading.