Humanitarian Action and the Current Refugee Crisis

Stefan Bauschard

November Public Forum

Resolution

Outline of the Lecture

Pro & Con Arguments

Strategic Considerations

Terms of the Resolution

Background

The Resolution

In response to the current crisis, a government should prioritize the humanitarian needs of refugees over its national interests.

Refu

gee

4  Under international law, Art. 1 A (2) Refugee Convention defines the notion ‘refugee’ as a 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 nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such

fear, is unwilling to return to it.

Although central to the refugee definition, ‘persecution’ itself is not defined in the 1951 Convention. Articles 31 and 33 refer to threats to life or freedom, so clearly it includes the threat of death, or the threat of torture, or cruel,

inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. A comprehensive analysis requires the general notion to be related to developments within the broad field of human

rights,6 and the recognition that fear of persecution and lack of protection are themselves interrelated elements. The persecuted do not enjoy the protection of their country of origin, while evidence of the lack of protection on either the internal or external level may create a presumption as to the (p. 39) likelihood of persecution and to the well-foundedness of any fear. However, there is no necessary linkage between persecution and government authority. A Convention refugee, by definition, must be unable or

unwilling to avail him- or herself of the protection of the state or government, and the notion of inability to secure the protection of the state is broad enough to include a situation where the authorities cannot or will not provide protection, for example, against persecution by non-state actors.

Refu

gee

Not a climate migrant -- As the planet’s ocean and seawaters continue to rise, coastal land becomes inundated, staple crops are destroyed by salinity intrusion, ecosystems are decimated or altered due to salt toxicity, and human populations are forcibly displaced.i The resulting displaced persons, safely referred to as climate-induced migrants, either become internally displaced persons (IDP’s) within their borders or cross international borders as a means of survival.ii Legally these migrants fall outside the rigid framework of the International Legal Regime for the protection of refugees. Unfortunately the plight of these climate-induced migrants is not aligned with the scope and definition of the 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees and the 1967

Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.iiivWith the 1951 Convention, and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of refugees in mind, the classification of climate-induced migrants as refugees, cannot be justified under international refugee law due to the absence of persecution.ccxviii

Not someone seeking relief of famine –

It is commonplace to speak of those in flight from famine , or otherwise migrating in search of food, as “refugees.” Over the past decade alone, millions of persons have abandoned their homes in countries such as North Korea, Sudan, Ethiopia, Congo, and Somalia, hoping that by moving they could find the nourishment needed to survive. In a colloquial sense, these people are refugees: they are on the move not by choice, but rather because their own desperation compels them to pursue a survival strategy away from the desperation confronting their home communities. In legal terms, however, refugee status is defined in a significantly more constrained way. The key standard, set by the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951,1 as supplemented by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees of 1967,2limits refugee status to a person who owing to 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 nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country. . .

Refu

gee

.There are other definitions – Broader

.Anyone fleeing violence –

UNHCR adopts just such an expansive definition in interpreting its mandate to protect refugees. I noted above that UNHCR was responsible for over ten million refugees in 2011.22 Not all of these people would qualify as refugees under the Convention definition, but UNHCR also recognizes as refugees persons who are outside their country of nationality or habitual residence and unable to return there owing to serious and indiscriminate threats to life, physical integrity or freedom resulting from generalized violence or events seriously disturbing public order. Carens

Refugee Convention definition is critiqued –

For example, some states have accepted women fleeing domestic violence as refugees on the grounds that the state from which they were fleeing did not take this threat seriously and this amounted to persecution on the basis of gender. 20 Even on the most expansive interpretation of the Convention, however, people fleeing civil wars and famine are generally not thought to qualify, because they are not targets of violence or deprivation, despite the fact that their lives are in danger.

On the other hand, someone who seeks asylum because she was thrown in jail for a few weeks for expressing political views would normally qualify as a refugee under the Convention. In my view, this discrepancy reveals that the Convention embodies a misplaced set of priorities. To insist that a refugee must be deliberately targeted is a mistake. From a moral perspective, what is most important is the severity of the threat to basic human rights and the degree of risk rather than the

source or character of the threat

Curre

nt C

risis60 million refugees world wide

What is the “current crisis”?

Crisis facing the Middle East and Europe

1. Largest refugee crisis in the world – since WWII2. Multiple countries -- People fleeing Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Yemen, Libya, Egypt -- Turkey (2 million), Lebanon (1.1 million), Jordan (1.4 million)-- Europe (1 million +) Germany 270,000 in September-- 3 million more could leave Syria, it will get worse & no end in sight for the wars . 4 million have left Syria since 2011.3. Refugee camps overwhelmed. Jordan not taking many more. Can’t feed people, some are returning to Syria. 4. Nexis – Refuge w/10 “current crisis” 99% about European crisis5. Sorry, climate doesn’t qualify, need to limit to status quo definition6. Context of the arguments doesn’t change that much

Curre

nt C

risis

Not Limited to Middle East & Europe

1. Inconsistent with a broader definition of refugees2. Excludes many important discussions3. Discussion is really general, so no harm4. Nothing that explicitly does – you can search “current

crisis” and find other examples

Hum

anita

rian N

eeds

Humanitarian assistance is generally accepted to mean the aid and action designed to save lives, alleviate suffering and maintain and protect human dignity during and in the aftermath of man-made crises and natural disasters, as well as to prevent and strengthen preparedness for the occurrence of such

situations (Source: Good Humanitarian Donorship). What marks it out from other forms of aid and foreign assistance is that it should be guided by the principles of:

Relief AidRelief aid refers to the provision of such assistance to those affected by a disaster, based on an initial rapid assessment of needs, and designed to contribute effectively to their recovery

Food:

Shelter:

Non-food Items: These items might include clothing, blankets, bedding, stoves and kitchen sets, water containers and hygiene products.

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion:

Hum

anita

rian N

eeds

Wikipedia, Humanitarian Aid, https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define:+humanitarian+aid DOA: 10-2-15 Humanitarian aid is material and logistic assistance to people in need. It is usually short-term help until the long-term help by government and other institutions replaces it. Among the people in need belong homeless, refugees, victims of natural disasters, wars and famines.

Prio

ritizeTo say one thing is more important than the other Google Definitions:, no date, https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define:+prioritize DOA: 10-2-15 Designate or treat (something) as more important than other things."prioritize your credit card debt"synonyms:emphasize, concentrate on, put first, focus on, fast-track, expedite, make a priority "we must prioritize pollution control"determine the order for dealing with (a series of items or tasks) according to their relative importance."age affects the way people prioritize their goals"synonyms:rank, order, hierarchize, triage; More

Govern

ment

Google Definitions, no date, https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define:+government DOA: 10-2-15Governing body gov·ern·mentˈɡəvər(n)mənt/nounnoun: government; plural noun: governments1. the governing body of a nation, state, or community."an agency of the federal government"

a.Dinctionary.com

not any particular or certain one of a class or group:a man; a chemical; a house.2.a certain; a particular:one at a time; two of a kind; A Miss Johnson called.3.another; one typically resembling:a Cicero in eloquence; a Jonah.4.one (used before plural nouns that are preceded by a quantifier singular in form): a hundred men(compare hundreds of men); a dozen times(compare dozens of times).5.indefinitely or nonspecifically (used with adjectives expressing number):a great many years; a few stars.6.one (used before a noun expressing quantity):a yard of ribbon; a score of times.7.any; a single:not a one.

Natio

nal In

tere

stNo agreed on meeting

Michael Williams, University of Wales, 2005, European Journal of International Relations, vol 11(3), What is the National Interest? The Neoconservative Challenge in IR Theory, p. 321 Neoconservatism’s critique of Realism emerges from this perspective, and develops along three reinforcing lines. First, the endless debates and indeterminacy within Realism over what the national interest is, reflected more than just the complexities of judgment, which neoconservatives readily acknowledge.

Realists – power, self interestliberalis – values, international lawNeoconservatives – promotion US values, we’re great

Should

Should is a duty or obligation Webster's II, 1984, p. 1078 Should is used to express duty or obligation

Arguments to Win

Humanitarian Need

Moral Obligation to Act on It

Bad to Prioritize the National Interest

Humanitarian Need

• Given you an idea of the magnitude• 500,000+ have crossed by sea – 3,000 have died

Alyan, 3

Humanitarian Needs

• Given you an idea of the magnitude• 500,000+ have crossed by sea – 3,000 have died• For the refugees coming by boat, the immediate health

concerns are exposure, dehydration, and if there's capsizing, there's going to be the risk of drowning or near-drownings

• "There's also a portion of refugees who end up in local communities with relatives or places that are culturally similar where they're squatting, so there's overcrowding and displacing of the health care resources available there

• ." Refugee camps present a host of their own health problems, including over-crowding, inadequate access to water and poor sanitation services. This can subsequently lead to outbreaks, such as cholera and typhoid

Humanitarian Needs• Refugee children experience trauma resulting from war and political violence in their countries of

origin prior to migration, as well as during flight or in refugee camps. These multiple stressors include direct exposure to war time violence and combat experience, displacement and loss of home, malnutrition, separation from caregivers, detention and torture and a multitude of other traumatic circumstances affecting the children’s health, mental health and general well being. A large number of studies have documented a wide range of symptoms experienced by refugee children

• Every member state, except the Netherlands, has slashed contributions to the World Food Progamme The drastic cuts over the past year mean the UN agency has been unable to hand out food vouchers to hundreds of thousands of Syrians at refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and Turkey

• . In Turkey, around 60,000 women gave birth in the camps since the start of the conflict. WFP has since had to halve assistance to almost 1.3 million Syrian refugees in the region

• Austria, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Portugal, and Slovakia made the most drastic cuts. All sliced their contributions by 100 percent this year, compared to last year. Sweden’s contribution dropped by 95 percent, followed by Lithuania at 69.5 percent, and Belgium at 54.7 percent.

• AID V. ASYLUM

Moral Obligation

General sense -- Refugees are spending thousands of euros to make treacherous journeys over land and sea. As the world has lately been reminded (but too infrequently for my taste), many die along the way. This is an economic problem as well as a moral one. An impoverished refugee will have a harder time making a fresh start, and a dead refugee never gets the chance.

Compassion -- Nonetheless, as human beings, we have a duty to show compassion and to provide them with assistance. This is also our duty as Europeans. The European community was founded on the principle of solidarity. Today we must not refuse to take joint responsibility for the union, nor turn a blind eye to human suffering and the situation of countries most affected by the rising tide of migration

Impossible for them to live there -- The Vietnamese and Hungarians were fleeing Communism. What’s holding back sympathy for the Syrians? They’ve been barrel-bombed in Aleppo by their own regime, they’ve been tortured, kidnapped and massacred by miscellaneous jihadis and opposition militias.

Mutual Aid (Walzer) - in certain circumstances, strangers (but not enemies) might be entitled to our hospitality, assistance, and good will. This acknowledgment can be formalized as the principle of mutual aid, which suggests the duties that we owe, as John Rawls has written, “not only to definite individuals, say to those cooperating together in some social arrangement, but to persons generally.” 1 Mutual aid extends across political (and also cultural, religious, and linguistic) frontiers.

Moral Obligation• Special obligation to children -- Because of their special vulnerability and inability to

represent themselves, unaccompanied children should be provided with legal representation and guardians ad litem to assist them in immigration proceedings and to see that care and placement decisions are made with a child's best interest in mind.

• Hospitality -- The increasing popularity of leaders of far right parties, who all publicly voice xenophobia and racism against those perceived as foreigners, are alarming examples of the return of exclusionist popular nationalism and fascism to haunt postcolonial Europe. 'Immigration' demands and those of ethnic minorities, especially religious demands, have become contentious issues in Europe. Hospitality has become more difficult since the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent 'war on terror' led by the American Government.

• Should end misery -- The other concerns me in all his material misery. It is a matter, eventually, of nourishing him, of clothing him”, says Levinas (2001: 52). In the same vein his notion of substitution aims to disclose our capacity to feel the other’s pain in our own flesh (Levinas 1981: 117). In fact, one’s responsibility for the other can be likened to one’s devotion to oneself (Levinas 1989b: 83). Levinas’s understanding of “ethics” does not provide for responsibility as a psychological event theorisation remains in order to solve moral and practical problems. The other person is both the ethical other and the political third (Levinas 1981: 160), and it is the presence of the third that necessitates justice, knowledge, equality, politics,

Moral Obligation• Special obligation to children -- Because of their special vulnerability and inability to

represent themselves, unaccompanied children should be provided with legal representation and guardians ad litem to assist them in immigration proceedings and to see that care and placement decisions are made with a child's best interest in mind.

• Hospitality -- The increasing popularity of leaders of far right parties, who all publicly voice xenophobia and racism against those perceived as foreigners, are alarming examples of the return of exclusionist popular nationalism and fascism to haunt postcolonial Europe. 'Immigration' demands and those of ethnic minorities, especially religious demands, have become contentious issues in Europe. Hospitality has become more difficult since the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent 'war on terror' led by the American Government.

• Should end misery -- The other concerns me in all his material misery. It is a matter, eventually, of nourishing him, of clothing him”, says Levinas (2001: 52). In the same vein his notion of substitution aims to disclose our capacity to feel the other’s pain in our own flesh (Levinas 1981: 117). In fact, one’s responsibility for the other can be likened to one’s devotion to oneself (Levinas 1989b: 83). Levinas’s understanding of “ethics” does not provide for responsibility as a psychological event theorisation remains in order to solve moral and practical problems. The other person is both the ethical other and the political third (Levinas 1981: 160), and it is the presence of the third that necessitates justice, knowledge, equality, politics,

Moral Obligation

The other -- This face-to-face encounter is thus no cognitive event. As we have seen, I cannot know the Other as Other without diminishing his or her otherness. I can, however, encounter that Other in what Levinas terms an ethical event. Indeed, it is only with the rending of the ontological schema that ethics first becomes possible. Prior to my meeting with the Other, there is no ethics as such. Within the totality of being, I am limited in my egoist ambition only by a lack of power. The Other who meets me face-to-face challenges my very right to exercise power. In so doing, ethics is born. Cognition no longer represents the highest activity of which a human is capable; it is replaced by "revelation" of the Other as an ethical event in which, for the first time, I come to realize the arbitrariness of my egoist ambitions. The thematizing of the cognitive subject is replaced by nothing short of an act of witness on the part of a being who now becomes an ethical subject. The Other who contests me is an Other truly independent of my appropriative powers and thus one to whom I can have, for the first time, ethical obligations. As Levinas puts it, this Other is the first being whom I can wish to murder. Before the totality is rent by the manifestation of the face, there can be no will to act immorally, as there can be no will to act morally, in any ultimate sense of that word. If one begins with the "imperial I" appropriating its world, ethics as such can never be founded. The other with whom I inter- act is simply a datum, an aspect of my universe. Morality makes its first appearance when I confront the Other who is truly Other. Although the Other appears to me now, on principle, as someone I could wish to kill, he or she in fact summons me to respond with nonviolence:

Moral Obligation

Veil of Ignorance (Rawls) --

Golden Rule -- , the pope, who was often interrupted by applause, reminded lawmakers of the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." He also told the joint session on Capitol Hill that immigrants are looking for a better life for themselves and their loved ones, which is the same that anyone would want for their children. "We must not be taken aback by their numbers, but rather view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we can to their situation," the pope said.

Empathy -- On Sunday, I accompanied the employment minister, Ylva Johansson, to a rally organized by the youth movements of the Social Democrats, the Greens, and other progressive parties. The featured speaker was the prime minister himself. As thousands braved a nasty rainstorm to attend the outdoor rally, Löfven declared, "We need to decide right now what kind of Europe we are going to be. My Europe takes in refugees. My Europe doesn't build walls," he said. Johansson added, in our conversation, "In Sweden we are different and we need to stay different. To feel empathy with the suffering of another person, a person who is not like ourselves, is part of being human. To solve this refugee crisis is not rocket science, it is not impossible."

Moral Obligation

Moral obligation quite strong for Refugees, at least as under the 1951 Convention and possibly under an expanded definition

Philosophers like John Rawls & Michael Walzer – strong defenders of community determination and state justification for immigration restriction say we should accept refugees – until the state would collapse, so no absolute

Fit everyone in the lifeboat we can, and the lifeboat isn’t even close to full

Is this a Pro or a Con argument?

Only contrary is Wellman, and he says association isn’t ABSOLUTE

Moral Obligation – Intl Law

• A Convention is a piece of international legislation, international law.

< Classic (Westphalian) international law is a contract law of sovereign states. There are three sources: contracts of sovereign states, customary international law and some general legal principles. The principle of sovereignty implies the recognition of non-interference in the internal affairs of a state. The goal of international law is the securing of peace between states; therefore, the right of a sovereign state to war (jus ad bellum ) is limited and, increasingly, rejected.>

• Countries agree to uphold international conventions and based on assumption of universality of certain norms. In order to be valid, they have to be ratified and then they have to be aligned with national legislation.

• 1951 Refugee Convention – Creates obligations from those who have ratified it -- Asylum -- Aid

Moral Obligation – Human Rights

• Human Rights based on the idea that people exist and have dignity

• Protected in international law, UN Declaration of human rights• Literally apply to people within states, not stateless• Still a moral obligation, even if the stateless can’t make a rights

claim• HR generally about things like free speech, people trying to

survive• Spirit of human rights means we must act

Practical Benefits

• Economies (of others)• War (in other countries)

National Interest

• Lacks morality• Not relevant in a multilateral world/multilateralism better.

Neoliberalism embraces multilateralism as the answer to the security challenges.

• Causes Aggression• Can justify the dropping of the atomic bomb• Arguably a social construction, can see the world different• Causes security paranoia• Assumptions flawed – humans not inherently evil, power hungry

The Con

It’s good to act in the national interest

Minimize morality claim, emphasize “priority”

It’s bad to base morality on foreign policy

The National Interest Indeed, the rule of morality in this respect is not precisely the same between

nations as between individuals. The duty of making its own welfare the guide of its actions, is much stronger upon the former than upon the latter; in proportion to the greater magnitude and importance of national compared with individual happiness, and to the greater permanency of the effects of national than of individual conduct. Existing millions, and for the most part future generations, are concerned in the present measures of a government; while the consequences of the private actions of an individual ordinarily terminate with himself, or are circumscribed within a narrow compass.

The basic fact of international politics is the absence of a society able to protect the existence, and to promote the interests, of the individual nations. For the individual nations to take care of their own national interests is, then, a political necessity. There can be no moral duty to neglect them; for as the international society is at present constituted, the consistent neglect of the national interest can only lead to national suicide. Yet it can be shown that there exists even a positive moral duty for the individual nation to take care of its national interests.

The National Interest A self-help system is one in which those who do not help themselves, or who do so less effectively

than others, will suffer. Fear of such unwanted consequences stimulates states to behave in ways that tend toward the creation of balances of power. Notice that the theory requires no assumptions of rationality or of constancy of will on the part of all the actors. The theory says simply that if some do relatively well, others will emulate them or fall by the wayside. Obviously, the system won't work won't work if all states lose interest in preserving themselves. It will, however, continue to work if some states do, while others do not, choose to lose their political identities, say, through amalgamation. Nor need it be assured that all of the competing states are striving relentlessly to increase their power. The possibility that force may be used by some states to weaken or destroy others does, however, make it difficult for them to break out of the competitive system.

Can’t help others if you don’t first protect yourself

Con doesn’t have to win that helping refugees threatens the national interest. And it’s not a debate the Con wants to start.

Minimize Humanitarian Claims 1. We can and should do

more

2. Prioritize when they conflict

3. Morally mitigating conditions

4. Morality claims, even deontic claims, are not absolute

3. Moral Minimizers Only moral obligation is to avoid harm

In a less than perfect world, where the ideal so obviously lies beyond human reach, it is natural that the avoidance of the worst should often be a more practical undertaking than the achievement of the best, and that some of the strongest imperatives of moral conduct should be ones of a negative rather than a positive nature

Avoid war, not moralize

Rather, Political realism should be seen as a group or class of theories, hypothesis and world views that have no more in common than a pessimistic view towards utopian notions of progress solely based on appeals to reason and values. Unfortunately, realists tell us, our first task is to secure relative peace (absence of war) and stability. Realists thus are sceptical against any thinker or politician who claims to have found a promising path towards a platform on which to build a universal approach to secure democracy, toleration, the rule of law, human rights and peace, all being the ultimate goals of both idealists and realists.

States have responsibility to citizens, mot others

The state is under a universal demand to avoid violating human rights, that is, whether the violation occurs within its jurisdiction or not. But the state is under no correspondingly universal obligation to protect or fulfill the rights of humans qua humans. The state is instead obliged to protect and fulfill the rights of only some humans, namely, those who happen to be present within its territorial jurisdiction. This limitation does not seem by itself to run up against the liberal demand for the equality of persons; it is instead the means by which that equality is to be made operational in a world of territorial states. Thus, an assault in France upon a French citizen is undoubtedly a violation of human rights, and is undoubtedly to be regretted by all states, French or otherwise. But the United States is not obliged to devote its institutional capacity to the vindication of the rights of the French citizen to be free from assault

3. Moral Minimizers Obligations don’t apply to large numbers

Since ideological (far more than ethnic) affinity is a matter of mutual recognition, there is a lot of room here for political choice— and thus, for exclusion as well as admission. Hence it might be said that my argument doesn’t reach to the desperation of the refugee. Nor does it suggest any way of dealing with the vast numbers of refugees generated by twentieth-century politics. On the one hand, everyone must have a place to live, and a place where a reasonably secure life is possible. On the other hand, this is not a right that can be enforced against particular host states

Infinite moral responsibility practically impossible

Anderson believes that the lawyer’s charity seems to go beyond what most would have given. This raises a question, he believes, which underpins the story: is it possible to perform acts of altruism without, finally, having regard to self–interest? What this suggests is that Christ’s commandments reflect an ideal, one that the rest of us find impossible to live up to because, at a certain point, we all turn back to self–preservation

Morality in Foreign Policy Bad Acting on ethical imperatives can have terrible consequences. An ethical God can only

judge. Here the danger and terror of ethics arises. The paradox is that Nazism could also be interpreted along these lines, as becomes clear in the thought of Peter Haas. Nazism seems to be founded on a definite, ruthless (indeed perverted) "ethical" code. Nazism was in all possible respects merciless. Whoever did not comply with its "ethical" demands inevitably "deserved" to be eliminated …Levinas's ethics should also be questioned as to its possibility of becoming fanatic in confrontation with evildoers. We must there- fore also put forth the question: "What comes after ethics?"

Subordinating the national interest to conflicting views of morality violates the will of the people.

Elected officials of a representative republican government, however, have no such right. While always professing a general morality, they do not run for office on the basis of a specific, declared hierarchy of moral values and judgments, but rather, at best, on a stated notion of the national interest. Certainly none has ever run on a program of subordinating the security and interests of the country to any particular view of the morality of foreign governments. Yet such a program is implicit in any policy that is shaped by the internal behavior of foreign nations.

Concluding Thoughts 1. Pro has an enormous persuasive advantage with

humanitarianism and they don’t have to argue for asylum. Multiple moral claims

2. Con should argue that humanitarian assistance should be supported, just not when it conflicts.

3. Con needs to defend reasonable, pragmatic morality

4. Cond needs to defend the importance of the national interest. Con should try to concretize as much as possible.

5. Can the Con say that humanitarian needs shouldn’t be prioritized because the humanitarian needs of those in the current crisis don’t conflict with the national interest?

6. Specific case – Open Borders?