Syrian refugees wait for mattresses, blankets and other supplies before being assigned to tents at the Zaatari Syrian refugees camp in Mafraq, near the Syrian border with Jordan. (AP)
Are Syrian refugees a threat to the security of the United States? In the wake of the deadly San Bernardino shootings, most Americans are on edge and many are reluctant to let in any more Muslims, especially Syrian refugees. Republican presidential candidates have picked up on this fear and the rhetoric is flying—Ben Carson compared them to “rabid dogs,” New Jersey Governor Chris Christie refuses to accept any “orphans under the age of 5,” and Presidential front-runner Donald Trump recently declared his plan to ban all Syrian refugees from entering the U.S. Both Carson and Trump even claim to have seen Muslims celebrating the fall of the World Trade Center on 9/11.
But the paranoia doesn’t stop there—more than half of state governors across the U.S. vowed not to take in any Syrian refugees. And last month, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to ban all Syrian (and Iraqi) refugees from entering the U.S. until more secure screening measures can be implemented.
Of course in the months leading up to the presidential elections, candidates are prone to making simplistic one-liners to cater to their constituency and advance their ratings in the polls. In reality, the problem of refugees for any country is quite complex—are the refugees fleeing political persecution or pursuing greater economic opportunity? How do we go about determining their motives and effectively screening claimants? Once refugees flee political persecution and land in a “safe” country, if they choose to forgo low-paying jobs in this safe country and immigrate to another country with better-paying jobs, are they then reclassified as economic immigrants? If we accept some from one religion, are we discriminating against other religions?
Since the November 12–13 attacks in Beirut and Paris, debate over immigration policy in many countries has intensified. In the U.S., the Obama administration revealed a plan to take in 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year. Australia has agreed to take in 12,000 Syrian refugees after careful screening, a process authorities say could take up to a year. In Canada, authorities are busy screening around 100 people per day to reach an ambitious target of 25,000 by the end of year.
In Europe, Germany is struggling to deal with 180,000 refugees who have entered the country since the beginning of November. Each of these countries is toiling with the question of which refugees to accept—mothers and their children, the elderly, or young single males? Will Muslims, Christians, Jews, Yazidis, Druze, Bahá’ís, or Zoroastrians be accepted and in what numbers?
Since the brutal crackdown of a popular uprising in Syria by President Bashar al-Assad, the U.S. has accepted around 1,900 Syrians flown in by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Out of the 1,900 Syrian refugees living in the U.S., the vast majority are Sunni Muslim, with only 53 Syrian Christians, one Yazidi, and a handful of Druze, Bahá’ís and Zoroastrians.
This disparity is due in part to the way in which the refugees are selected, according to Nina Shea, director of Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom and a former commissioner of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. In a recent article for the National Review, Shea argues that the Syrian Christians in refugee camps face a wide range of discrimination and danger, including kidnapping and death. The U.S. relies upon the UNHCR for the vetting of refugees, and the UNHCR largely selects refugees for relocation and settlement from the rolls of the refugee camps. Most of the Syrian Christians have fled the refugee camps in fear, many traversing to Lebanon.
The process by which refugees are vetted by the U.S. needs to change to target those also outside of refugee camps, in order to allow the vetting of more persecuted religious minorities from Syria. U.S. presidential candidates, all of whom profess a strong belief in Christ and the teachings of Christianity, should have no hesitancy in accepting fellow Christians from Syria—those “rabid dogs” and orphans who have been persecuted halfway around the world.
American Christians should also welcome with open arms Syrian Christians and help them with the daunting task of resettling and adjusting to life in the U.S. Before the war, Christians in Syria numbered over 2 million and there were around 80,000 Yazidis, both groups having been subjected to abduction, sexual enslavement, forcible conversion to Islam, or beheading. Is it unrealistic to assume 10,000 acceptable refugees from these populations can be found and relocated?
Given the inflammatory rhetoric of American presidential candidates, the cautious posturing of U.S. lawmakers, and the paranoia of a fearful American population, the unfortunate truth is that choosing 10,000 Christians for immediate vetting may be the only way to quickly accept and settle any Syrian refugees in the coming months. Canada, citing security concerns, has chosen to accept only women, children and families, and refuse young, single men. Even under this conservative plan, more than half of Canadians oppose their resettlement.
Putting Christians on a fast-track vetting process would go some way toward reversing the discrimination already in place—to date, Syrian Christians have been allotted only 3% of the spaces for refugees in the U.S. despite comprising 10% of the Syrian population. While Syrian Muslims would continue to be subject to a more thorough and stringent security screening, Syrian Christians should be fast-tracked into the U.S. using appropriate screening methods to weed out imposters. Hopefully in the near future, these discriminatory screening policies can converge, and Americans can come to accept greater numbers of innocent refugees regardless of their faith.
Via Richard Bistrong
Corruption is an affliction that blights much of the world. A perception study last year by Transparency International found that two-thirds of the world’s countries score below 50 on a scale from zero (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean).
For many former communist countries still undergoing a period of cultural and institutional transition, corruption is a major barrier on the road to achieving its goals. It hinders competitiveness and makes investment decisions more difficult, while adding additional layers of cost and diminishing the ability for countries to provide adequate levels of welfare for their citizens.
Despite its shortcomings, one of the greatest single achievements of the European Union has been its success at mentoring and assisting former communist and Soviet states in their bid to transition to a functioning Western style democracy.
Romania is an interesting example of this process. Following the country’s accession to the European Union in January 2007, the country’s efforts to tackle corruption were modest at best. An investigation in 2012 into corruption levels in Romania by the European Commission expressed serious concerns over the political situation and the ability to comply with fundamental principles of the Union.
Recently, however, evidence of progress has been more encouraging. Last year, the country’s National Anticorruption Directorate (NAD) successfully convicted 1,138 leading public figures, including top politicians, businessmen, judges and prosecutors. Furthermore convictions against high-level politicians and businessmen saw a significant increase compared to 2013; a shift in the anti-corruption drive that has continued into 2015 and has had a substantial social impact. A 2015 poll suggested that 60 per cent of Romanians trust the NAD, in contrast to only 11 per cent who express trust in parliament.
Perhaps the most high profile individual to be tainted by the clampdown on corruption is the country’s former Prime Minister, Victor Ponta, who stood down last month following mass protests triggered in part by charges of fraud, tax evasion and money laundering leveled against him. Other notable examples include Romanian media mogul, Adrian Sârbu, who was charged last year with tax evasion, money laundering and embezzlement and who is expected to stand trial in February 2016.
Ponta and Sârbu’s cases are particularly interesting as they indicate the endemic nature of corruption as well as its ability to traverse national borders with seeming impunity. One of Sârbu’s most notable business partners was Ronald Lauder, former US ambassador to Austria and son of the cosmetics tycoon Estée Lauder. Quick to identify the significant opportunities presented by the nascent media industry in Eastern Europe, in 1994 Lauder founded Central Media Enterprise (CME). By 1997, the news and entertainment company owned TV stations in Slovenia, Romania, Slovakia and Ukraine.
According to the New York Times, in Ukraine Lauder engaged with two local businessmen, Vadim Rabinovich and Boris Fuchsmann, whom the FBI and European law enforcement agencies suspect of having ties to Russian organized crime. In 2001 CME was investigated by US federal prosecutors over allegations it paid at least $1 million in bribes to Ukrainian officials for a valuable television license. These connections and allegations culminated in the magnate facing a lawsuit seeking $750 million in damages filed by rival broadcaster Perekhid Media Enterprises Ltd.
These examples demonstrate that while country’s like Romania have much work still to do in addressing rampant corruption, the fact that even serving Prime Ministers and leading international businessmen are no longer free from the spotlight of the justice system is enormously encouraging. The European Union deserves at least some credit for this transformation. It must not allow progress to slide.
The last 15 years has seen the creation of some of the most polarized media to ever exist in the last half century. The difference in perspective and truthiness from one media outlet to another is so divided that it has produced a narrative that can only exist in the solitudes of those who have a similar perspective. The common theme for all media and politically aligned parties is that their truth works against the elite.
Gaining a political foothold requires convincing a polarized media and their supporters that the real stories are being hidden by some monolith of power, changing depending on who the elite of those opponents tend to be and their position of power in society. Both sides of the political spectrum have defined the battlefield of ideas that often do not exist as real societal issues.
If there is no single truth, lies can become powerful tools in an election. If lies can be legitimized, actions against opponents may go beyond simple media debates, shielding the application of justice and human rights if a criminal act can be silenced or validated.
The individual who wins the elections in the United States, France or Germany may be the one who can show not to associate with elites, even if they are some of the most wealthy and influential people to exist in those communities. A danger comes from over-reacting to someone who is the anti-elite as it turns simple media accounts into a mind numbing morass of phraseology and vitriol. The anti-elites put debaters in the position of being seen as defending an elite that works in the shadows against the interests of the general public.
This message might not resonate with the average citizen, but when their lives are directly affected or threatened, responses from either camp that tamp down discussions can promote grassroots support in the community against the ruling party at the time. Trends begin to play a more important role than policy as the latter fails to meet a certain standard of societal expectations. Those who last are those who are new to the game, and have been able to not use their power to corrupt or oppress. The left in Latin America, once considered a movement that would change North American dominance in the region, fell on their own sword for many of these reasons.
Brazil’s economic miracle was successful even before the rise in commodity prices wedded to a Chinese economic boom. Economic policy initially implemented under the former center right government before the electoral dynasty of the Worker’s Party (PT) kept social policy in the forefront of the country’s agenda, while managing a balanced debt reduction strategy. Keeping the public debt under control and combining it with social programs placed Brazil to take full advantage of a commodities boom.
In recent years, the negative response to elitist international sporting events and the corruption that flowed between the PT and business elites has tarnished the party’s image and an confidence in President Rousseff’s government: her approval rates fluctuate around 10%. A citizen’s movement buoyed by an assertive judicial branch has gone beyond party politics in an effort to weed out corruption. Even former President Lula may be face criminal charges, and there is a strong popular movement to impeach President Rousseff.
Argentina was rocked by the death of a prosecutor investigating the former government’s tampering of information about an attack on the Jewish community. When he was found dead, documents revealed that he was on the verge of indicting President Cristina Kirchner herself, the populist leader of Argentina. In recent years, she had increasing difficulties to maintain her popular support and legitimize her socially-oriented, but fiscally irresponsible policy decrees. Her party recently lost an election to Macri, a pro-business candidate, with many in Argentina reorienting their distaste for an elite against the very government that routinely denounced the abuses of the high society.
Venezuela’s opposition gained a great deal of recent support as Chavismo and President Maduro lost the public’s trust. Despite an intensive media campaign in Venezuela promoting the populist government, the degrading state of Venezuela’s economy, standard of living and several violent actions taken against opposition politicians threatened to rob Chavismo of its political legitimacy. It is not possible to promote a narrative in Venezuela that no longer reflects the real issues in society, and while Maduro is still President, he could be the last supporter of Chavez’s revolution to hold power in the country.
2015 represents the beginning of the fall of those alleged elites, whether or not they are truly those in power. Often, political campaigning places those elites into power, but corruption scandals and the subsequent investigations and monitoring may put pressure on leaders to take actions to the benefit of society. Corruption tends to have deep roots, so while the mainstream media chooses sides, hopefully an intelligent community and assertive judicial community will push against elites from both political camps.