What is the future model for Asylum from war-torn countries with large populations?

ToneControl

For a year or two, I have considered that the existing model is not tenable
It was set up when travel was hard, populations smaller, and weapons less effective

The current situation with Syria is a case in point: it's not a big country 16m I think
A civil war has resulting in millions wanting the emigrate/flee to  the most attractive countries they can expect to reach
This is hardly surprising, who would not?

Trouble is, many countries are way bigger. Egypt is 90m I think, Turkey is UK-sized or bigger. There are many large populations near to Europe.

So: what is the best way to handle civil wars or  country-country wars in future?
I'm thinking that heavily subsidised good refugee camps, properly guarded by the UN  are the answer, or else  the wealthier countries will be struggling to accomodate the numbers indefinitely, and the warring countries will never get their best people back again

It's clearly a selfish view, but I  can't see how the EU and UK could cope with Syria-style conflict in large countries

The issue today with Turkey brings that to the fore for me

mgaw

think thats the logic behind our governments position with the Syrian camps...best get it organised properly me thinks though.the political climate in Europe is getting ever more right wing, mmmm.

A bit of me thinks that we will be very grateful for the channel in years to come

iseverynamegone

I guess we could be pro active and stop arming them then bombing them. 

Mkjackary

iseverynamegone said:

I guess we could be pro active and stop arming them then bombing them. 

So standing by and letting Islamic State control all of Syria is the best thing to do?

Currently we have the royal air force bombing them along with Russians and USA and French etc. And instead of deploying our own ground troops and inevitabley getting casualties, we just pick a rebel/Kurds/army that already is fighting ISIS, and help them.

The alternative is to deploy ground troops, which in fairness would get the conflict over with a lot quicker.

Or stop bombing all together, and let Syria and parts of iraq become an ISIS become a country, let then do their thing, like becoming a new north Korea.

iseverynamegone

No, I'm saying be proactive and try to stop it at the source. All we are reacting to now is years of invasions we didn't need and weapons we didn't need to sell. 

Lets stop selling and giving folk weapons and then blaming everyone but the west when they , ummm , start to use them.  But on we go , pumping arm sales in Saudi et al. 

Horse has bolted by the time countries are in ruins.  

paulmapp8306

Mkjackary said:

iseverynamegone said:

I guess we could be pro active and stop arming them then bombing them. 

Or stop bombing all together, and let Syria and parts of iraq become an ISIS become a country, let then do their thing, like becoming a new north Korea.

Wont ever happen with IOSIS.  They dont even WANT to be a country - they are a religious grouping.  They see there borders as being wherever they can have an influence.

OK - thats only really true for ISIS, not for the likes of Syria as such - BUT You cant treat ISIS like a country, or regime - there not.  They cross national boarders, and seek to extend their influence wherever they can.

The answer to everyone else?? its very complex. They will get weapons wherever they can - its not about suppl as such.  You could take one party out of the equation with military action - but thats neither popular, easily achievable, or even moral really - as your siding with one side of an "argument".   Even if your successful, someone/something will come forward and take its place - so your back to square one.  You can only really leave them to get on with it.  That leaves asylum seekers to deal with - and yes the issue isnt with them as suck - its the ease of travel (relatively) and willingness of countries to let them in (wouldn't have happened a century or more ago).  There isnt the room really in europe for mass population moves, as were pretty crowded as a continent already.  You could ship them further afield - spread them throughout the world - but I cant see China, India, Russia, USA ext being happy about that.  If you put them in guarded camps - fine, but that takes money, manpower, resources (whos paying) - and ultimately (though not intentionally, and for different reasons) could end up like native american reservations - or the Jewish Ghettos in Germany pre-concentration camps. 

There is no easy answer, there is no right answer, and ultimately I cant see countries as a group agreeing on one way forward.

hywelg

The best we can hope for is to contain the conflict, so a refugee becomes an asylum seeker the first border they cross. Subsequent borders do not count. That way the countries of the region have a bigger vested interest in limiting the effects of a conflict. Problem with middle east is no-one wants to solve it, properly too many vested interests.

E.g. Iraq has huge borders with Iran and Saudi but how many regugees go there? Precious few I'll wager, they all head to Turkey with a view of coming to the EU.

Personally too many immigrants with frankly, backward, religious views is negating the progress we've made here in diminishing the influence of irrational beliefs. John Lennon summed it up " Imagine................., no religion too"

The West will lose its liberal ideals if we have too many illiberal people bringing their religion and culture here.

iseverynamegone

Like Catholics?

lloyd

We need to just let them get on with it, every developed country on earth has had its share of civil war and unrest. Arming them is mental as is trying to pick a side. They need to find their own path IMO.