Actually, the crisis is not in Europe, but in the appallingly destructive states from which millions of people are fleeing.
If, as some politicians and commentators are suggesting, we can't solve the problem by simply taking more and more refugees (and, which has some truth to it, thereby feeding the people-traffickers), then more strategic attention has to be paid to tackling the problem at source. And that is where it gets embarrassing – many of the problems have arisen because of western military intervention in places that have now collapsed into violence.
The Prime Minister is reported as saying that “we can't take any more”. This is not a given – it is a choice. We can take more refugees – we choose not to. That is a different matter.
Perhaps the compassionate and costly response of Germany has something to do with a living memory of such humanitarian need on their own land and caused by their own choices. There is no reason why we on our island should not demonstrate a similar compassionate imagination. Furthermore, if not already being done with some urgency, other Middle Eastern countries (probably excluding Jordan which has already absorbed huge numbers during the last few years) should be pressured to take refugees – something they seem not to be keen to do.
The mass migration – from which we in the UK have largely been protected since the aftermath of the Second World War – we are seeing now demands a strategic European response. Anything else will be both incoherent and inhumane. That is the political demand in a humanitarian crisis.
September 3, 2015 at 10:27 am
Your blog is vital and wise. Because of the depth of the crisis and the fact that the situation is worsened by the evil religious movement of Isis should there not be a call for prayer on behalf of the crown or state? Roger Fry
September 3, 2015 at 2:12 pm
I’d imagined Sadam to be mortal and have had so many enemies of so many kinds he and his mate Chemical Ali used gas to maintain power, and ads war on his neighbours to maintain control.
But it was just the west who caused trouble. He’d have lived like a recluse when the sanctions were lifted, never have bought SCUD missiles from Russia, nor turned chemicals factories to chemical weapon use again had the UN not passed all those beastly resolutions.
He’s have signed up to the UN chemical weapons convention, let children have priority over his armed forces when allocating medicines.
And made peace between the Islam factions who have been in schism for over a millennium.
That is without reference to Assad and his commanders and their mustard gas etc of course. Or Gaddaffi and his nuclear ambitions and terrorism.
Hands up! The west wot dunnnit!
September 3, 2015 at 4:30 pm
I so agree with this blog.
Would it be possible to have a strong united leading voice from the church to put pressure on our politicians to take action?
I am not a keen believer in a united Europe, but in this case I can see that Europe would be able to help to solve this problem, if we all pull together.
Finally the chance to do something positive, so much better than meddling in each other’s internal affairs.
September 3, 2015 at 7:17 pm
Perhaps the compassionate and costly response of Germany has something to do with a living memory of such humanitarian need on their own land and caused by their own choices
You’d like to think so, but then look at the way they’ve treated the Greeks…
But I’m not sure that politicians saying we can take more will help much, if refugees find that ordinary people spit at them in the streets. And there are still a number of countries where that would happen. It would take courageous leadership and a willingness to stand up to the thugs who run the media who are dropping the ugly racist poison into people’s ears.
September 3, 2015 at 7:29 pm
It makes me ashamed to be British how we turn our backs on assylum seekers. We talk about British values, but surely one of the key British (and Christian, Jewish and Muslem) values is compassion and care for those in need. Yet we put our fingers in our ears and say nothing to do with me, when our Foreign policy has contributed much to the instability in the middle east and so to the plight of these people.
When we have taken in such people in the past, e.g Jews in the second world war years and Ugandans in their troubles, they have not been a drain on our resources, they have been keen to get jobs and pay their way and have repaid us many times although that was not what we were looking for.
Where would our banks and our hospitals and our newsagents etc be without them. In the name of God we must reach out and help these people. OK some will misuse this, it was ever thus, but most won’t and these are God’s needy people. Why do we wait for Governments to do it. We in the Churches. the Mosques and the Synagogues need to act now, we are already too late for many.
September 4, 2015 at 9:27 am
I have just made a similar post about this on my blog, great minds… This situation must end, because the suffering of the innocent cannot continue. A man made problem, only solvable by mankind. (continuousstrings.wordpress.com) Cat x
September 4, 2015 at 3:24 pm
Thank you Nick. On a recent visit to the UK I was dismayed at how even reasonable people seem to unthinkingly mouth the phrase ‘we are small crowded island, there is room for anyone else.’ When you look around England and Wales (don’t know about Scotland) you can see that there is little urban sprawl and actually rather a lot of space. As you say, the UK is choosing its stance on this. It is not a given. I was moved by the Icelanders’ response to their own government. When the government said they could take 50 immigrants, the residents for that small country, through social media, gathered several thousand offers from people to house a refugee family in their home, causing a little government rethink there.
I think we should stop talking about the ‘immigration emergency’ and perhaps start thinking about this new reality which is here. I’m not sure higher walls, tear gas, and marking people’s arms with indelible ink are going to solve it in the long run.
September 6, 2015 at 11:00 pm
Choices! Choices! Choices! We all have hard choices to make. We could heed the request of Pope Francis to give home and support to refugees. Every Church, every Congregation and every Humanitarian Organization for love of our neighbor could give home and support to at least one refugee family. The only outstanding debt we owe to God is to love one another. What a difference we could make to the world. And surely now is a good time. We can hug a refugee like another Francis embraced an outcast – a leper. Francis of Assisi in spite of the feelings of fear and repulsion made such a choice and it was another turning point in his life.
September 7, 2015 at 12:38 pm
One of the underlining causes of this crisis is that, ‘…From 2006-2011, up to 60% of Syria’s land experienced, in the terms of one expert, “the worst long-term drought and most severe set of crop failures since agricultural civilizations began in the Fertile Crescent many millennia ago.” … see http://climateandsecurity.org/2012/02/29/syria-climate-change-drought-and-social-unrest/. So it’s partly a climate change issue. Elements of the answer lies in using the sea water and land appropriately.
September 7, 2015 at 12:40 pm
So if some sea irrigation / Solar Still / recycling / sustainability etc is applied perhaps this kind of migration could be averted in the future.
September 7, 2015 at 7:47 pm
The Methodists and now the Pope have made appeals for each congregation to take a refugees or family of refugees but I have not heard of a similar call from the Church of England. One of the strengths of the C of E across the country is its network on the ground which is well placed to assist and help settle refugees. It is certainly important for the C of E leadership to try to influence our government to be part of a coordinated European response to the crisis but it needs to also coordinate practical action at its own grass roots level. The willingness of local churches to commit to assisting refugees in practical ways would be fulfilling Christ’s call to love our neighbour as ourselves and would continue to show that the government has misjudged the nation’s capacity for compassion. Recent Government announcements show how public and international opinion can have an impact on their miserly approach. However 20,000 over 5 years (however they intend to ration this) sounds like an attempt to deflect criticism and at media management rather than a heartfelt desire to “live up to our moral responsibility”. We need to keep up the pressure.
September 7, 2015 at 9:37 pm
Very good post.
I feel we need a change in scale of thinking along the lines of what happened in the banking sector in 2008.
Alastair Darling writes in his biography that his first three months as chancellor in 2007 were spent trying to find £7 billion to cover up the 10p income tax rate abolition by Gordon Brown. It was hard work, and involved tricky choices, and endless meetings.
One year later, he was agreeing to a £50 billion bail out over the course of a curry in order to bail out the banking sector, and he looked back with nostalgia at the times when £7 billion felt like a lot of money.
Currently, the government seems mired in thinking that if it takes refugees a few thousand will do. I believe it needs to start shifting to something more along the lines of 200,000.
I thought the Archbishop of Canterbury’s critique of today’s announcement in the House of Commons was very good, but I’m hopeful he’ll go even further.
Is there a common sense in the Bishops that we need to take in hundreds of thousands of refugees, or is this something that is contentious? (And I appreciate that it’s not a solution without massive problems and challenges.)
September 8, 2015 at 11:22 am
Don’t mistake Germans for the German government. People welcoming refugees is mostly a grassroots effort, maybe a reaction to the hatred we saw before by right wing extremists attacking refugees and setting their homes on fire.
The government was first pressed to give clear words and then the pblic showed up helping.
We are not all angels here in Germany, but for maybe the first time in my life I am proud of my country and proud to say so. And if you know anything about Germans’ issues with national pride, you know what that means.
I think we can easily integrate the estimated 800.000 refugees. We took more after WWII and the country was in ruins. Now we are rich.
I find it overwhelming how welcoming refugees spreads also to other countries, someone mentioned Iceland, I heard about giving refugees a warm welcome also in other European countries. Maybe this is the renewal of the European spirit that seemed long absent due to national particular interests (and Germany played a bad role in this).
Maybe this is the birth of something like a single European people instead of several peoples with a common market.
I even wonder if we see the work of the Holy Spirit being done here. Evil (right wing nationalist violence) is overcome by love (welcoming the refugees) and it’s spreading! What a grace!
Yes, this is a challenge, and something needs to be done about the problems that causes the refugee streams, but now, as people are coming, drowning, desperate to find a future, we have to help them first. If someone is run over by a car because of broken traffic lights, you don’t first fix the traffic lights and let that person die, you call the ambulance to save the person’s life, then you go and fix the lights.
We’ve been waiting too long to really address the problems in countries like Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. We’ve added to the problem, not the solution when we thought dropping some bombs would solve all. Violence is never a solution. What you need it reconciliation.
September 9, 2015 at 5:32 am
Yes, geopolitics are the destructive ignition to this horrible mass of human suffering. A good recent article I highly recommend is the following one:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-drops-bombs-the-eu-gets-refugees-and-blame-this-is-insane/5474310
September 17, 2015 at 8:34 pm
I appreciate the humanitarian views I see on this blog, but I would appreciate any input as to why there are approximately 5 males to 1 female being allowed into the EU? 5 males to 1 female being pictured on trains, in boats, etc.? Why are these able-bodied men running like scared rabbits and leaving the women at home? Why aren’t they in their homelands, fighting to regain their country? Why aren’t the EU countries allowing the women and children in and turning the men back to their countries to fight? The men would be assured that the women and children are being fed, housed, etc.. Why are the refugees so willing to let every other country in the world fight their battle, and when it is finished, stroll back and take control? I am puzzled. Americans fight for their country; they don’t turn tail and run, letting everyone else do the fighting. If Syria, Iraq, etc., etc. is worth living in and they want every other country to be like that territory, why aren’t the men proud enough of it to stand their ground? But, I know why. Entitlement. They are “entitled” to a free meal, free housing, free, free, free, and it is much easier to take than to give everything for freedom.
My opinion only – from the other side of asylum.
September 18, 2015 at 8:18 am
Oh, that’s an easy one. Imagine you live in a place where it is relatively secure for a while but not for a lifetime, like a refugee camp in Turkey. You have a place to stay and there is food, though rations have been cut down, and you don’t know for how long you can stay there or whether Daesh will invade Turkey as well. Then you have a family of a strong man and his wife and several small children. Or two old parents and younger children and one son who is in the age of strength. What would you do?
You’d get all money you can get together and bet on this man to make it to Europe. Once there, he can have his family legally follow him on a secure route, by train or plane. But first, one of them has to get there across the Mediterranean and several countries of which some appear rather hostile. There are endless dangers on the way, so you send the strongest family member you have. These are usually the young men. That is why there are so many young men among the refugees.
Some others don’t bet on having a chance to stay where they are, they leave as a family, completely, as you also see pictures of babies and old people being carried by their parents or children respectively.
Regain would mean they once had it. They never did. Syria is a dictatorship. Afghanistan is not far from it. What would they fight for? Assad or Daesh? What a choice! These poeple want peace, maybe after 5 years of war they are fed up and don’t believe in Western Rambo-like thoughts of regaining anything by brute force. They just want to leave, they just want to live their lives in peace, they want a chance to build their live through hard work in a place, where hard work counts, and not how well you handle a AK47.
Because believe it or not: Men are as much human beings as women and children are. No one has a duty to fight in a war. But everyone has a right to live. The EU comforms to basic human rights here.
Oh, would they? Although Germany is pictured as so very welcoming to refugees, we’ve had plenty of attacks on refugee homes recently. We still have Nazis around,and not only in Germany. It’s still much better than Syria, but I wouldn’t want to leave my family back there to fight a war for a system I don’t believe in. Would you?
I’m pretty sure most wouldn’t stroll back. Most will stay, I would too and so would you.
I don’t think the refugees care much about other countries fighting “their battle”. It isn’t their battle. It’s a war between a dictator and a theocracy, both more than willing to kill anybody dissenting. The democratic opposition has hardly an influence and the Kurdish fighters care for their own people first, of course, so why join them if you are no Kurd? Besides, those fighting “their battle” also bomb Kurdish fighters, did you hear about Turkey joining the war to fight the Kurds instead of Daesh?
Why should any refugee stay and fight? Without a gun, without proper training, without a hope that the fight would change anything to the better? Under these circumstances, Washington wouldn’t have fought either.
Americans, that’s a people made of persons who did flee in the first place, first from Europe, then from all around the world. They went to America to have a better live there, instead of fighting for their religious liberties or political liberties in Europe etc. So America is a bad example. Maybe if we integrate the refugees and make them feel as Europeans, like Americans feel like being American and not Irish, Italian, German and what not, then I am sure they would also fight. Not for Syria, but for the European country they belong to now.
As a matter of fact there are quite some people of Turkish decent who were born and grew up in Germany who serve in the Bundeswehr and not the Turkish army, though they generally feel more Turkish than German.
I don’t think they want every other country to be like Syria or Iraq.
Sorry, but this is complete bullshit. Those who come here to Germany want to work, they want to work hard and achieve something. They are not after entitlement. Entitlement is what we give them so they can endure through tougher times, because we don’t want Europe to become like the US Ghettos without health insurance or a social security system that deserves the name. We do not want to push people into criminality to earn their living, we want to give them chance to work hard and make it to the sun side of life.
My opinion only…