The Future of 4.7 Million+ Iraqi Refugees

In searching what different global authorities are doing about the Iraqi Refugee crisis I find mixed messages as always. Laurie's article inspired me to compare different reactions from non-governmental organizations. Her article was from Human Rights Watch which, in principle, is a similar organization to Amnesty International (AI). When browsing their site, I found a straight forward article about their approach to the problem. It was published in June 2008. AI is calling upon the international community for financial assistance, an end in deportations and the creation of/permission to seek legal employment. This seems to be a standard response to a refugee crisis, but as indicated in a more recent article published by Human Rights Watch in November 2008, Greece is systematically gathering Iraqi refugees and sending them to Turkey and denying almost all asylum claims. I have a hard time trusting that non-governmental non-profits have enough clout to make a change in a problem this vast.

So, on to the United State's role in the situation. Obama claimed in campagin, as indicated on his website, that he would allocate 2 billion dollars "to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find sanctuary." This was a claim he made in his campaign, but now, realizing the shrinking budget and growing problems, I believe that humanitarian efforts in Iraq may be the first sort of efforts to be cut from the budget allocations. Proof for this claim is found in this facinating Pro-Publica (journalism in the public interest) article that is a story on the tracking of the White House website's changes in official agendas.

Basically, the US government's Iraq agenda is changing, and I think that all evidence points to a lack of support for Iraqi refugees in the future. In my opinion, it is the United States' responsibility to support (at least in some ways, if not comprehensively) Iraqi refugees. It is time for the US government to take some responsibility for the mistakes that have been commited.

The question I am left with is how do we support the refugees? Perhaps creating re-settlement programs here in our country seeing as many refugees are not able to return because their communities are broken. I am not sure that pouring funds into supporting refugees in surrounding countries is such a good idea, but may me more plausable than creating yet another re-settlement plan. The next obvious step seems to make Iraq safe for civilians to live there, stop violence but assit the new government in maintaing non-violence and post-war reconsruction efforts. I am not sure that I have cleared anything up, but more presented a question of how to actually support the "official" 4.7 million that have been displaced by the war. (I say "official" because I assume there are millions more that have been displaced within Iraq and are not registered "refugees")

Iraqi Refugees in the United States

In the reading for this week, Gregory referred to the responsibilities that are conferred upon an occupying nation according to the Geneva Convention of 1949. The basic responsibilities include protecting the people and their property, and Gregory stresses the point that the U.S. has failed to do so since the initial incursion. I was interested in looking at asylum and immigration to the United States and whether or not it constitutes one of the obligations we have to the Iraqi people.

I found a few articles that report Iraqi refugees are being admitted in much higher numbers recently (2007,2008) than they were at the beginning of the war, with this LA Times article reporting that the target for 2008 was 17,000 refugees.

One article from the Chicago Tribune discusses the influx of Iraqi refugees to the Chicago area. I found it interesting that the article compared the trend in Iraqi immigration to the flow of Vietnamese refugees into Chicago 30-40 years ago. The article predicts that the Iraqi population in Chicago could increase to 30,000 or more. I felt like this statistic highlighted the fact that the current immigration policy is not a symbolic gesture or concession to Iraqis, but a significant step towards resettlement.

Gregory makes the reader aware (if they weren't already) that the U.S. has not typically heeded international advice or statue in this conflict, but I feel that the idea of responsibilities that accompany occupation are still relevant. Do you think that accepting refugees is one of the obligations of an occupying power? Is it another way of ensuring the protection of the Iraqi people, or is it simply an attempt to "make up" for the protection we failed to give in the first place?

Would You Return?

With our migration theme now focusing on Iraq, I have found several articles from throughout the last year or so discussing displaced Iraqis and the prospect of returning to their homes. This article from Reuters, written by Refugees International entitled "Would You Return?" discussed the question; Can they return home? And if not, what would it take for them to return to their cities, neighborhoods and houses? The answers to these questions reflect the still very high number of violent incidents in the country and that these displaced peoples don't necessarily want to return to the place where they saw members of their families murdered. It is difficult to understand people's emotions after their lives have been so drastically impacted, but it seems like the desire of displaced Iraqis to return to the lives they had prior to the U.S. invasion is not universal. Restoring the lives of these people is often not even a possibility, one Shia woman's home was demolished by a Sunni militia with the intent of making it clear that she and her family/old community are not welcome. I don't know where to begin in my attempt to understand such a terrible situation for so many people, does anyone have any thoughts about what the responsibility of the United States is in this dilemma? Has the military already messed up enough, or should they continue to help people return to their old lives?

"I felt like the country shifted away from me, and that I wasn’t shifting with it"

This post is a take on the movement of one American (emblematic of many) away from his country.  I read an article (1/29/09) from the Santa Barbara Independent, reporting after a film screening of an oil-company-employee-turned-documentary-filmmaker.  Mark Manning tells of how he became frustrated with our nation and its actions and set out to make a film (Road to Fallujah) about exactly what was happening-- an effort to try to humanize the "enemy."  I think this is a strongly felt sensation since of the US invasion and war on Iraq.

After the screening, the audience was connected via live video feed to Iraqi citizens.  This dialogue between the two people was an effort by Manning so that "[People could] get in touch with the suffering that war causes. For most Americans [in the audience on Tuesday], that was probably the first time they’ve actually met people who have been on the receiving end of our military action. It’s not a joyful kumbaya experience, but it’s real. I think that once you start that process of humanizing the other side you create a connection that is really hard to break.”

After reading Laura's piece about how the conclusion of this conflict will go, I thought about the US's role, and after reading this article, about how the American people will react.  How will our relations to Iraqis change?  What sort of ending to the conflict will we demand?  Will complacency prevail?  How might this affect our role as citizens in future military decision-making?