Thursday, September 03, 2015

Aylan Kurdi, Chris Alexander, refugee futures

Normally, I think I'd have a certain amount of satisfaction in watching a journalist like Rosemary Barton disassemble a Harper-weasel like Chris Alexander.  But I can't today. Aylan Kurdi, 3, was found dead on a beach, drowned along with his brother Galip, and mother Rehan. Their father and husband, Abdullah, returning to Syria with their bodies after he was desperately unable to save them.

Chris Alexander was apparently personally handed this family's refugee claim file, later rejected. A normal person would spend the next week haunted and sleepless, vomiting at his own reflection and drafting his resignation from politics, but I doubt this is the case.

This will have happened before, as just about every rejected claim from a Syrian, or an Afghan, or an Iraqi might well condemn them to die in the Med, under an ISIS sword, or an RCAF bomb.

But now there are faces and names assigned to four desperate people fleeing ISIS, three whom could've been alive and safe if it weren't for some fucking misanthropic Conservative "policy". The fourth will return to Syria and, like his country, probably never recover.

Here's the thing. This is the just the beginning of another great migration. In the coming decades, war, poverty, and environmental change are going to drive millions of people toward anywhere that looks like a refuge. The rich, liberal, tolerant, countries are the obvious and only real choices. Most other countries are ethnocentric and will shoot them at the border. Hell, the Hungarian government eventually just might.

We in the rich countries have a choice: open our doors and let our fellow humans live, or shut them and be prepared to watch as hundreds of millions if not billions die.

Things are different now.


West End Bob said...

What really frosts me in all the reports about the horrific refugee problem is the complete lack of reporting on what is the underlying cause of the current situation, Boris.

If not for george w. bush, dickhead cheney, donald rumsfeldt, paul wolfowitz, condescending rice, et al ISIS would probably not even exist and hence the Syrian civil war would no doubt be a non-issue. Their botched decisions in invading Iraq and disbanding the Sunni bureaucrats along with the standing army was the birth of ISIS.

No reporting on today's crisis that I'm aware of has brought up these pertinent facts. Yet again a colossal failure on Corporate Media's part. They are quick to show the refugee hordes and the serious problems they are incurring, but no one reports on the back-story.

Guess that doesn't generate ratings/$$$$ . . . .

Boris said...

Yes, this is most recently the result of the Bush-Cheney era mess, but deeper than that is the way that enabled the fanatics already in the region. I'll probably write another post on this, but military action at this point doesn't do much other than keep pressure on ISIS. If at some point ISIS collapses it may or may not be in because of anything Canada or anyone else does. Violent ideological movements like that are prone to internal splits and a failure to resource themselves properly. But a collapse means little as it could merely dissolve into broken region punctuated by sectarian violence. Never mind the destroyed infrastructure. There is opportunity to rebuild Syria or northern Iraq in a way that would allow millions of refugees to return and resume stable and secure lives.

Purple library guy said...

Well, and even now, nobody's willing to get real about the dynamics of the situation. Those ISIS fighters may be fanatics and all that, but they are also being paid. They get a frigging paycheck to fight. And where is the money coming from? Our allies. Saudi Arabia for sure, maybe Qatar, Turkey, perhaps still some from the US itself. If they had to fight for free, an awful lot of those fighters would melt away or split off into bandit gangs scrounging for food. The civil war would gradually peter out and people wouldn't have to run for their lives.

Everyone's willing to drop bombs on ISIS, but nobody seems willing to follow the money and for instance tell the fucking Saudis to lay the fuck off. Or in the case of the US, push them to just make a decision already and stop trying to simultaneously destabilize the country and "fight" those destabilizing it. It's easy to send some bombers and puff out our chests, it's hard to find the backbone to call out the shitheads we're "allied" to on their BS (and I note that none of the parties are willing to do so).

double nickel said...

Oddly enough, Norman Specter thinks the Syrian issue is totally Obama's fault. Go figure!

e.a.f. said...

the problems started when the West and the oil companies divided up the middle east to suite themselves. Then the dictators came and went and the West, especially the U.S.A. supported whomever, was open to doing business with them. As time went by, it just got worse. Each group more violent than the previous.

It might be better if the Middle east was simply left along for them to figure it out themselves. Provide safe havens in the middle east for those who want to stay and not fight. the Kurds have done fairly O.K. Let other groups do the same.

The money comes from the oil ISIS is controlling but not one country is willing to go in and bomb the oil to hell. No that would mean a cut in business. Now some would say innocent civilians would be killed, well what do they think is happening now as thousands die trying to escape.

Part of this is the unwillingness for countries to deal with problems. The refugee problem in France, with people trying to get through the tunnel to England; why didn't they just bring in the armed forces to ensure that did not happen? why didn't they supply the refugees/migrants with some sort of accommodation, food, water, medical treatment. Start building some sort of infrastructure so people had a safe "city" to wait in. Now things have escalated and it will cost a whole lot more.