No one wins – Intro to International Relations

The United States has developed a reputation of getting involved in conflicts. How much the USA should get involved in conflicts around the world is a matter of a lot of debate both in the US and abroad. There have been some very successful interventions during the first and second world wars in particular. However, they have been significantly less successful in many interventions since then. From Vietnam to Iraq, countries around the world have critiqued the Unites states’ involvement in Civil wars and other conflicts. Since the end of the cold war, the US is still constantly intervening in regions across the world, and has arguably developed the role of global hegemon. Today there is a big debate revolving around the Syrian crisis. The conflict in Syria has caused nearly 4 million Syrian refugees to flee their home land. Now the problem is who is responsible for housing them?

Does the US have an obligation to take in foreigner refugees when the United States was not directly involved in the conflict? If the US is the hegemon in the world, surely it has a responsibility to be a leading example to the world to help those directly persecuted by terrorists or dictatorships. This was certainly the case during the Cuban crisis, where the US was the main destination for fleeing Cuban refugees. Today the issue of Syrian refugees is being handled mainly by the countries directly affected, mainly Turkey, and the different European countries where the refugees are fleeing. We have noted very large differences of opinions among these countries, with Germany very open to Syrian immigrants on one end and Hungary very closed on the other. On the other hand, after making a deliberate decision not to get involved, perhaps the US is excused. Personally, I feel there is only one reason why letting refugees immigrate around the globe may cause problems in the future. This reason is that it may begin a domino effect on many other countries undergoing conflict. When looking at the size of Europe and the US, we can ensure that 4 million Syria refugees find a safe home. But if that number begins to rise, due to other countries under going civil wars, famine, and other internal issues, how do we decide when immigration is no longer a realistic option? Yet at the present, the two countries most involved in helping the millions of people being displaced are Jordan and Lebanon. These two relatively small countries are close to the breaking point under the pressure of this influx of refugees. So when taking into consideration what these other countries are doing, surely countries with more space, resources and facilities such as the Unites States should be taking a more active role.

Cole C says:

October 5, 2015 at 7:42 pm

At the end of the post you argue “when taking into consideration what these other countries are doing, surely countries with more space, resources and facilities such as the Unites States should be taking a more active role.” I would think there are some more factors in understanding why a country would or wouldn’t take refugees in, and if we can even expect them to take refugees in.

Here’s an example: Let’s say there’s some crisis in Russia and boatloads of refugees need some place to call home. In our last class we discussed the fact that only 15% of Russians even have a positive view of the United States. Should the US have a responsibility to take in a group of people that will generally hate their host? Certainly this would cause assimilation issues, difficulty in dealing with the refugees, and so on. US citizens might be uncomfortable with this as well. You could substitute Russia for Iran in this case; you could even hypothetically imagine Israel being faced with the decision to Iranian refugees.

Essentially, I think there’s more to the story than claiming that countries with more space and resources should have to step up. This also raises an interesting question: can inaction be immoral? Is it wrong for the US to stand by when refugees are looking for a place to stay? Certainly they aren’t contributing to their situation–they are just abstaining from the situation altogether. Of course, when we look back at when the United States denied the St. Louis (filled with Jews who were sent away from Hitler’s Germany) the ability to dock in Florida, we wonder how the US could have been so callous. Maybe this will be a similar situation.

Jessica Matsuda says:

October 6, 2015 at 1:15 pm

You make some good points Cole, but I’m not sure you understand the severity of the situation in Syria. These people are escaping a mass of chaos and murder. Scholars are even starting to consider the conflict in Syria a genocide (http://www.ushmm.org/confront-genocide/cases/syria). Unfortunately, their own government is terrorizing the citizens to the point of mass exodus. This does not make for the rather picky, for lack of a better term, refugees you describe. These people are desperate for the minimal basics: food, water, shelter, and safety. Those who have been lucky enough to escape don’t really have a choice of where they go, and the refugees very much understand that. In the video clip we watch recently, the profiled Syrian family that escaped to Germany had even started to learn German already. I don’t think we’ll hear a single story on the news of refugees refusing to leave the chaos of Syria because they didn’t get their top choice of country.

That being said, your example is a topic we talk about in most classes. Will countries help each other if they can’t (or won’t) identify? I can’t say for sure, but knowing the diplomatic relations of the U.S. and Russia, sheltering refugees might begin to build peaceful relationship with both countries.