Expert Panel Debates Syrian Refugee Crisis

The Syrian civil war has been going on for four years. It has dominated newspaper headlines and global consciences but shows little sign of devolving from horror. Up until 2014, the U.S. had only taken just over 200 Syrian refugees from the conflict. As the seemingly interminable streams of asylum seekers climb out of rafts in the Mediterranean and walk through multiple countries in search of hospitality, it is natural to wonder, what can the rest of the world do? Indeed, the title of the panel held on Thursday, Oct. 29 in the Robert A. Jones ’59 House (RAJ) conference room was “The Refugee Crisis in Europe: Global Responses.” Sadly, those pressing questions weren’t fully answered. What was made clear, though, is how desperate the situation is, and how as it stands there seems to be little in the way of meaningful progress.

The Rohatyn Center for Global Affairs, the Geography department and Atwater Commons all co-sponsored the panel of talks hosting a series of distinguished guests and a few members of the Middlebury community who did their best to present the situation. Each of the four panelists had a rigorous 18-minute speaking limit, and the pace of their presentations was frenetic yet illuminating.

A resounding opening speech by the Rohatyn Center’s Director, Professor of Geography Tamar Meyer, ascertained how Europe’s “landscape had become militarized” in response to the “worst refugee crisis since World War Two.” She criticized the responses for being mainly “ad hoc” but highlighted how some European states, particularly smaller ones with weaker economies, were worried about the erosion of Europe’s “Christian character.” She lambasted the conditions that many refugees were being sheltered in, calling them “terrible” and bringing attention to instances of rape arising from housing the large amount of male asylum seekers alongside the women.

The failure of coordination in the Europe-wide response was emphasized by Judith Kumin, former United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Director for Europe. She described how the refugees were being treated like “hot potatoes” being passed from one country to the next as quickly as possible, with some countries at the edge of the European space (Hungary and Bulgaria) even building fences to keep them out.

Though the EU has not dealt with the refugee crisis well in itself, Harvard visiting professor Allison Mountz argued that its coordination of off-shore border control was more effective. Not that this was a good thing by any means. Indeed, she observed how the conversion of islands from traditionally hospitable “places of transit” into “incarcerous detention centers” ended up “reducing the space for asylum.” In her view, the use of deterrent border policies was an obvious failure.

Amidst the disappointment and critique, there was room for a little optimism, and Jennifer Hyndman, professor and Director at the Centre for Refugee Studies at York University in Toronto pointed out how “crisis has a function to open up political space” and thus for all the pain and suffering that is observed, there was potential for progressive solutions that wouldn’t arise in less pressing situations. However, she acknowledged that whilst there was room for a progressive opening there was indeed also the possibility of mass “securitization” as people become more driven by fear.

Professor of German Roman Graf spoke about the situation in Germany and how while there were strong shows of humanitarian support, Chancellor Merkel’s popularity was at an all time low. Merkel had been instrumental in dragging the center-right of German politics towards pro-refugee territory. Professor Graf emphasized the importance of German history in the response and referred to the first paragraph of their constitution which states that “the dignity of people is untouchable.” Such an attitude has led to the German authorities stating that they expect around a million asylum applications, despite rising right-wing sentiments and acts of violence against refugees and their supporters.

To make the situation more confusing, Kumin pointed to how the current refugee crisis from Syria and other countries has coincided with massive migration from countries like Macedonia and Pakistan, leading to a convergence of streams, both migratory and asylum seeking. She bemoaned the collapse of an EU-wide asylum policy and pointed out how for the first time, refugees were showing “agency” and “voting with their feet” by not stopping in the first safe country but instead moving towards where it was they thought they would have the best standard of hospitality (in these cases, this would be Germany and Sweden).

Natalie Figueroa ’18, who attended the talks and is taking a class on labor migration, enjoyed hearing the panel and seeing how they related to her coursework.

“It was interesting to learn how there was such a mix between refugees who wanted to remain in Europe and others who were set on returning home,” she said.

Jennifer Hyndman had quoted the figure that of 889 Syrians interviewed in Germany, 92 percent said that they were hoping to return. Indeed, according to research she quoted, most Syrians had expected to be home by now, and that their savings were being depleted.

Most of the refugees in Europe are young men — there are many more, eight million internally displaced people within Syria that have not been able to get out. Indeed, of these only the most able (financially or otherwise) were able to make the passage to Europe,  as the rest live in camps in neighboring countries. The question of who it is that most needs help remained unanswerable.

Allison Mountz’s presentation of her research on the policing of migratory space and the conversion of islands into detention centers concluded with Judith Butler’s ever-relevant question of “whose lives count as human?” But Professor of Anthropology David Stoll spoke to the Campus after the talk, disagreeing.

“Everything I heard was about the dehumanization of border deterrents,” he said. “What about the dehumanization of allowing a large number of people into the job market at the lowest level, the lowest rung of civil society?”