 |
| Yazidi families fleeing an attack by the Islamic State near the Iraq border. The number of forcibly displaced people today stands at over 59.5 million - roughly equal to the population of Italy. Photo credit: Reuters |
Can we carve out a piece of land
that refugees can call home? That’s a question that many are discussing, thanks
to the buzz created around the idea by real estate millionaire Jason Buzi with
his Refugee Nation project. What
makes this discussion so urgent is the fact despite advances in the spheres of
economy, technology, human rights and academics, the number of refugees around
the world has just kept on growing. That number of
forcibly displaced people today stands at over 59.5 million – roughly equal
to the population of Italy.
The immediate demand for
attention and action comes as thousands feel outraged and perhaps helpless as
they see a colossal people crisis unfold in various parts of the world. A substantial
number also feel threatened by the same. The crisis in Europe may have gotten
maximum attention, but similar issues in Southeast
Asia or other parts
of Africa are no less significant or pain-striking. And hence comes forward
the idea of a refugee nation, as Buzi puts it.
That idea has perhaps long
existed in fiction. Talk about the eco-refugees
in the movies Mad Max or Water World or the idea of a new-age Noah’s Ark built
by rich nations with tickets sold to the elite in the movie 2012. Well, for all
its purposes, wasn’t the actual idea of Noah’s Ark also to provide refuge in a
time of environmental disaster? These examples, irrespective of their existence
in fiction, point to two types of insights when it comes to a refugee crisis –
temporary and permanent.
While eco-refugees, like the
ones climate change is perhaps creating, need permanent solutions today; the
idea that a safe, temporary solution should be sought in the time of need is
what perhaps guided the creation of Noah’s Ark, either in reality or as a myth.
That’s the approach refugee camps take, don’t’ they? They are meant to serve as
temporary shelters until the refugees can be granted permanent citizenship
elsewhere or until conditions turn favourable for their return to their home
country. But these are desired scenarios that seldom arrive, and often at snail’s
pace, giving those temporary shelters permanent attributes.
Where these shelters exist, how
they are sustained and how they evolve to integrate with society as refugees become
citizens are the key questions then. Currently, they exist in recognised states
like Jordan, Italy, Greece, Tanzania among many others. They are supported by
the national governments, international organisations like the United Nations
and non-governmental bodies and charities. The maximum stress, however, is
often on the national government and these resources often don’t match the
demand.
A
refugee society-state
What this idea of a refugee
nation does is that it answers these questions in different ways while also
throwing up possible scenarios. The assumption is, those shelters – now permanent
in nature – must exist on a separate territory that can be used to form a new state.
Further, this territory and the
people should be sustained with the help of donations from the rich – states,
people or companies, while the refugees take up tasks most attuned to their
skills, for refugees are also people with skills and education, and some are
doctors and engineers too. We tend to club them homogenously and often also mistakenly
just call them migrants. So they can work there, earn a living and form a part
of a refugee society that evolves into this accommodating, cosmopolitan society
that takes in refugees with ease, as and when they arrive in the future (ideally
that number will organically go down). Buzi is aiming for a permanent,
sustainable and universal solution with this idea. So, this would be home then.
Essentially, adding to the meaning of the word refugee – for now Refugia (a
term coined by Professor Robin Cohen of the International Migration Institute) is
a permanent home for the refugees. So either, the nature of the way we use the
word changes or its meaning becomes larger.
 |
| People from the Rohingya community collect water to drink at a refugee camp in Myanmar. While the crisis in Europe has gotten maximum attention, the people's crisis is unfortunately much more universal than it appears. Photo credit: AP |
But
what else changes?
A change in the usage of the
word will more importantly correspondingly change the way we respond to it.
While, the idea of a refugee nation is stimulating, it must grow into much more
than a survivor’s camp. Can it have a permanent structure by itself? Should it?
In fact, what is primitively
essential to acknowledge is that, in a lucid form, a nation as such already
exists; for a nation is a large body of people with a shared history or
culture, inhabiting a particular territory. Currently that territory is fluidic
and is dispersed across states around the world. To consolidate that territory
into one mass, and to bring those people to that mass is a legitimate response
to mitigate the crisis, but it seems unlikely to be a long-term solution to it.
There’s need for innovation in responses to this bludgeoning refugee crisis,
and as the ‘Airbnb
for refugees’ initiative shows, that innovation is happening. It is
imperative to recognise that these innovations help deal with the crisis, not
solve it at the source. And the problems at that source arise from hardships entrenched
in socio, political and economic grounds, among others.
But for immediate responses, I
vote for the creation of a refugee station, rather than a refugee nation. Without
pre-conditions, it should be welcoming and serve as a platform to provide urgent
security of all kinds, support to re-integrate with society and confidence to find
home in the long-term. A station that is born under the aegis
of the United Nations rather than as charity of a private kind, as
Professor Cohen suggests. While the funds can come from donations, the efficacy
in its functioning can only be derived from a principled approach embedded in
perhaps a partnership of the public and the private. They’ll need to be a setup
of governance quite akin to the one of federalism for self-governance to
flourish or else this may end up being just another refugee camp. Freedom is what
people are after – political, social and economic – let’s not forget that.
Where will this territory be
and how will it be procured? These are questions that need much discussion, to
ensure ease of accessibility and sustainability as well. Also, this Refugia
must not just serve as the mirage of an oasis that attracts refugees, but be a
station to help and assist the ones in need, irrespective of existing state or
creed. Validation would be another major process again, hurting the pace of
settlement. This is an area that needs urgent innovation and rethinking.
Perhaps the United Nations could
finally nail the search and finally become a wholesome, combined nation in
itself. And would that not be tangible proof of a post-national world? It’ll
have to be – post-national and transnational. And when it comes to opening the doors
of this station, it must be important to acknowledge the meaning and difference
in the words migrants and refugees and to recognise that both these words,
at the end of the day, comprise people.
The
perils of proposal
As Alexander
Betts points out, the premise of the idea of a refugee nation is exclusion,
not inclusion. What a blow could that be to the notion of refugee integration
and what signal would it send to the perpetrators? One that they can create
havoc, force people out and be rest-assured they’ll find their way to this
safe, welcoming place? The creation of such a nation/station will have to go
hand-in-hand with that of fighting the causes at their roots, aggressively. For
this station will also serve as the best incubation pad to come up methods to
tackle the crisis at home.
There are more threats. Would
the shared experiences of the refugees create harmony and brotherhood, or could
the disparate cultural and religious understandings lead to conflicts that
threaten the existence of this land of peace? Also, would it not create another
class across the world? A class of people that donates and thinks of itself as saviours
of this oppressed refugee class. But this one may not be that big a problem in
the future, for such corrupt attitudes to charity already exist, promoting what
Slavoj Zizek calls cultural
capitalism.
Would
you help form it?
Despite the perils, if an agency
were to ensure the sustainability of such a station to mitigate this people’s crisis,
I would. Would you, as long as you are assured of the transparency and
accountability of the project? Accountability towards refugees, and you, and states
too. For those national governments where these people are coming from shall
continue to have stake in this crisis. But would this idea also not raise
doubts about the promotion of this charity industry? Those questions are as
valid as the search for responses to the crisis, and until we find them, such
innovations must not only be debated but also implemented methodically with
caution, perhaps with institutional help.
For whatever the nature of world
politics, innovation and constructivism are what shall see us through. How we
define and employ them may ultimately seal the deal. For, it’s not possible to
imagine my thought processes if I were a refugee (it may also be a cruel test),
but if I were to attempt to respond to the idea of this refugee station, the
answer would be a definite, “Yes, take me there”. But then, I would still seek
my home, and there are reasonable doubts if Refugia will be able to provide one
in the long-term.
