Among the many humanitarian disasters produced by the civil war now raging in Iraq is one that is almost invisible. Rarely do scenes of massive displacement of the civilian population make it onto our television screens, because, unlike bombs and suicide attacks, displacement does not generate the blood, fire or screams that constitute compelling footage. Yet the numbers are staggering: Each month, some 40,000 Iraqis flee their homes because of the war. Half of them go to other parts of Iraq; the rest go abroad.
Iraq's population, frankly, is bleeding away. This devastation is even more dramatic because, since the invasion four years ago, only 3,183 Iraqis have been resettled in third countries. According to the UN High Commission for Refugees, all countries combined have offered a chance to start a new life to approximately the same number of Iraqi refugees who have fled the country in just five days.
This exodus is not new, but since the increased violence that followed the bombing of the Shiite Golden Mosque in Samarra in February last year, the pace of the displacement has accelerated. Indeed, this is the largest population displacement in the Middle East since 1948.
Two million Iraqi refugees are scattered around the region, the great majority of them in Jordan and Syria, with smaller numbers in Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt. Because they are urban refugees -- not housed in tents, but rather blending in with the population in the host countries -- they are easily ignored.
For Iraq, this is a brain drain that will be hard to repair. The country had a total population of 26.8 million, and now nearly 13 percent of them are displaced; many may never return. But what happens to them?
tragedy
Last month, I traveled to four countries in the Middle East to meet refugees and learn about their stories and options. In Amman, Damascus, Istanbul and Beirut, I met dozens of people who have a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country. I spoke to a hairdresser who was raped because she is Christian. I heard the story of a liquor store owner whose one-year old son was kidnapped and beheaded. I met with a Shiite taxi driver whose father was killed in Najaf just a few days before. I listened to a Sunni engineer whose association with a US construction company makes him a target for extremists and to a translator of the Christian Mandaean minority who narrowly escaped death when the UN headquarters in Baghdad was bombed in August 2003. Most of those to whom I spoke were poor and without hope for the future. None wanted me to use their names.
Refugees who are in the country of first asylum usually face three possible choices: return to their homeland, try to integrate in the host country, or be resettled to a third country. But do the Iraqis really have these three choices? Can anyone watching reports of the daily carnage in Iraq envision Iraqis going back?
no safe zone
The answer is no. If the parliament in Baghdad -- one of the best protected buildings in the country -- can be attacked from within, then no Zone in Iraq is Green; they are all Red. Repatriation of Iraqis is unrealistic and definitely out of question for any foreseeable future.
Most Iraqis cannot opt for local integration, either. True, Jordan and Syria let most Iraqis in, but they do not offer a possibility of durable local absorption. Iraqis cannot become permanent residents, and they do not have work permits or access to public health services. In Jordan, Iraqi children cannot go to public schools. It is not a matter of ill will on the part of these countries; they simply cannot afford to extend these services. Helping them to cope with the influx of refugees is necessary, but it is not a durable solution.
This leaves the third possibility -- that of resettlement. But for this to happen, countries with traditionally generous refugee programs should come forward and offer more places to receive Iraqis. The US is a bad example: Only 692 refugees have been accepted since the invasion -- roughly the number of Iraqis who are killed every week. In February, the Bush administration announced that it will offer resettlement this year to 7,000 Iraqi refugees. If the US makes good on this promise, it would be a big step forward. The US, which led the intervention in Iraq, should now lead in attending to the victims.
Should the US not take the lead, the only hope is that other countries will be more generous. The Iraqi refugees are a crisis that cannot be ignored: The international community must alleviate the burden on the countries in the region, while offering resettlement opportunities to many more of the most vulnerable Iraqis.
Anna Husarska is senior policy adviser at the International Rescue Committee.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under