Over the past year, and with increasing intensity since the Paris attacks in November 2015, debates have raged in the EU, the United States, and elsewhere as to how to address and manage the flood of Syrian refugees fleeing violence in their country – “the world’s largest humanitarian crisis since World War II” according to the European Commission on Humanitarian Aid. A recent article refers to the struggle to identify the “true” refugee in an exodus such as this. At the same time, the countries immediately surrounding Syria strain under the weight of the millions of migrants who have sought safety within their borders.

As the world struggles to address the crisis caused by 9 million people fleeing their homes in the span of four years, increasing attention has turned to the role that the oil-rich emirates of the Persian Gulf are playing – or not playing – as part of the international response.

The statistics demonstrate why eyebrows are being raised:

• 3 million: according to the European Commission on Humanitarian Aid, this is the number of Syrians who fled to the country’s immediate neighbors – Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq -since the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011.
• 681,000: the number of Syrians who have arrived in Europe and applied for asylum between 2011 and November 2015 according to the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, a number that grows by the day.
• Zero: According to Amnesty International, that is the number of Syrian refugees allowed into the six states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE) since the conflict began.

Demographics and Fear of Instability Drive Immigration Policy

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have pushed back on the claims that they have stood idly by during the crisis, pointing to millions of dollars they have given to relief efforts, and asserting that they have admitted hundreds of thousands of Syrians as migrant workers.

The distinction between whether a Syrian is allowed into one of the Gulf States as a “worker” or a “refugee” may seem like an issue of semantics, but it reveals the complicated nature of immigration policies in the Gulf States.

Much of the growth and development in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States over the past decades has been accomplished through the labour of hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals admitted to the countries on work permits. In fact, foreign workers in many Gulf States are by far the largest part of the population. In the UAE, for example, foreign nationals outnumber citizens by more than five to one.

While such large numbers of foreign workers have been necessary for economic reasons, fears of political instability and demographic imbalance have made Gulf governments wary of expanding the number of work visas they will grant to workers from other Arab nations. According to rights groups, the reality is that visa restrictions make it difficult if not impossible for Syrians to enter and stay in Gulf countries, and their rights are extremely limited while they are there. Foreigners are only allowed residency if they or their spouse have full-time jobs in the country, they cannot stay in the country without work, and once their contracts are up almost all migrants are forced to leave.

Furthermore, critics also say the numbers of Syrians cited by the Gulf States as proof of their assistance with the crisis are not in fact families escaping violence and squalor but rather wealthy Syrians who can pay handsomely to sit out the war.

No “Refugees” Admitted to – or Recognised By – the Gulf States

The same fears of upsetting a delicate demographic balance and importing political instability or violence that drive the limits on foreign workers in the Gulf States also explains, at least in part, the reluctance of the Gulf States to take in Syrians as “refugees.”

But another reason is the fact that the Gulf States are under no legal obligation to assist with the crisis. Unlike the vast majority of nations, including the countries of the EU, the US, and Australia, the Gulf States are not signatories to the 1951 international convention on refugee rights which establishes the status and rights of refugees as well as the obligations of participating nations. As such, the Gulf States do not even recognise the concept of “refugees” and therefore take the approach that Syrians wanting to enter their countries must meet the same standards and comply with the same burdensome rules as any workers wishing to be admitted.

Europe and the West are Seen as the Only Options

Given both the challenges of gaining entrance to the Gulf States and the limitations on their rights if they somehow are allowed in, Syrian refugees have largely eschewed any efforts to get to the Gulf States, focusing instead on the treacherous journey to Europe or other Western countries.

While politicians and populations in many such countries have appeared less than welcoming, especially in the wake of the Paris attacks, the fact remains that the benefits available and the chances of receiving permanent asylum away from their war-torn homeland are substantially better in Europe and the West than they are in the Middle East.

Post-Paris, U.S. President Barack Obama has promised to veto proposals by Republicans to put a halt on admitting Syrian refugees. French President Francois Hollande has reaffirmed his country’s commitment to accepting Syrian migrants, and in Australia, the first of an expected 12,000 Syrian refugees have begun to arrive.

Conclusion

With the Gulf States giving no indication that they will be making any significant changes to their immigration or refugee policies in the foreseeable future, Syrians fleeing war will continue to focus their efforts on making it to other countries – Europe, the U.S., and Australia primarily – for safety and the chance of a new life.

2015 has been a year of mass migrations.

Between January to August 2015, 350,000 irregular migrants entered Europe. An estimated 800,000 migrants seeking asylum are expected to arrive in Germany alone this year.

With only four mass migrations occurring in Europe in recorded history, what can be done with so many people in a modern migrant crisis?

And who can pick a true refugee within the context of mass flows of people into Europe from middle eastern countries in war situations or experiencing political or social upheaval?

What Caused The Migrant Crisis And What Is Europe Doing About It?

According to BBC News, the mass exodus of people from the Middle East and Africa is being fuelled mainly by civil war and terror with conflicts raging in Syria and Afghanistan as well as human rights abuses in Eritrea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhBlYwxcaLY

What Is A Refugee?

Under the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees, a refugee is:

Any person who, owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his/her nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country.”

If it were possible to identify many of the people fleeing into Europe as refugees under the Refugees Convention and Protocol, what recognition under these international instruments should now be given to them? What protection should be afforded to them and what can, and should, be done for them as well as the large number of people who have been dubbed migrants rather than refugees?

Australia’s Position

Australia’s past response to a mass influx of people from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Burma and Sri Lanka in ‘turning back the boats’ was successful. It did, however, sublimate our international convention obligations by denying many true refugees the protection to which they were entitled.

At the time, this deliberate avoidance of our international obligation was, perhaps, considered ‘justifiable’ in order to save the lives of many people, including families undertaking such a dangerous sea voyage.

Which raises the question: Is this stance a proper or permanent position for Australia to adopt? According to international or domestic law, can we lawfully (or even morally) maintain this position while still adhering to our current international refugee obligations? The jury is still out on these questions.

Is There A Solution For Europe?

Whatever the legality or morality of Australia’s policy position on refugees, this type of ‘turn back the boats’ response is simply not available to landlocked European countries which are now desperate to find a viable solution for hundreds of thousands of people arriving at their borders daily.

Short of using unpleasant or violent state measures, there is no way to physically prevent mass people movements into Europe across open EU borders.

The migrant crisis is unlikely to improve in the near future without regime change, or complete political and economic solutions emerging overnight in countries being fled.

Who Are The True Refugees?

It is impossible for anyone to say now how many of these desperate people from war torn or repressive Middle Eastern countries are genuine refugees. But does it matter what label is given to them?

For Germany, France, the UK or other affected countries, there is no way to assess such numbers of people properly under their usual refugee assessment processes. Any attempt to do so would take many years and result in significant cost to affected countries, the claimants and their families.

Even Australia faces a herculean administrative and expensive task, under well-developed refugee assessment procedures, to resolve the refugee claims of tens of thousands of boat people who arrived in Australia more than two years ago. Refugee claimants who were removed to Nauru and Papua New Guinea are also still to be resolved.

Legal Change Needed

It is clear that the idea and legal definition of who is a refugee and, therefore, entitled to protection is no longer viable in 2015.

In recent years, Australia has introduced an additional form of protection called Complementary Protection. This is an extension of protection that can be given to asylum seekers. It is used for people who were not previously recognised as a refugee under Australia’s refugee assessment process, but whom the Minister finds substantial grounds for believing that they could face a real risk of suffering significant harm if removed from Australia. This is a positive step forward but does not go far enough.

Mass movements of people across the globe in response to political, social and economic crises as well as religious persecution that is unique to the 21st century require a new and robust solution.

Conclusion

The global approach to who is entitled to refugee protection, or other forms of protection, is in pressing need of review.

It is time for the United Nation’s High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), perhaps, to review the obsolete definition of who is entitled to refugee protection and what obligations are imposed on countries that have ratified the Refugees Convention and Protocol.

Most importantly, the UNHCR needs to make a strong case to the United Nations for nation states to:

• find effective and enforceable solutions to mass people movements
• strive to remove their root causes more effectively; and
• resolve to develop ways to help people in need in their home countries.

This should be a priority, regardless of whether persons seeking asylum qualify for protection under the current outdated refugee definition; or under a new definition; or simply because law and order is breaking down in their home country and remaining there is not feasible without serious threat to life.

What do you think Governments should do about mass movements of people into their countries? Is there an easy answer, or will this issue continue to be placed in the ‘too hard’ basket? Let us know what you think in the comments section below!

For Information About Refugee & Asylum Seeker Policies And Processes Visit:

• Refugee & Immigration Legal Centre (RILC)
• Refugee Council
• United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHCR)
• Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC)
• Department of Immigration and Border Protection